McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

This transcript is already on another thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is from an official CNN thread. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm bringing this over on a new thread because of certain parts of the transcript (I've bolded them) which have relevance to the BBC's announcement of its Crimewatch Special programme.

I've also bolded any factual errors I've found.

The programme was advertised as: 'Maddy McCann Alive?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NANCY GRACE

Maddy McCann Alive?

Aired August 27, 2013 - 20:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe there`s a very good chance Madeleine is out there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is a real possibility that Madeleine can still be found alive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madeleine McCann was 3 years old when she disappeared from a resort. Now British police say they have new leads and are reopening the investigation. They want to question 38 people across Europe, including 12 British nationals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The authorities in this country are now actively pursuing Madeleine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say this new evidence was a development after combing through more than 30,000 pages of documents related to the case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her parents have worn the grief and anguish on their faces day after day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.

Breaking news tonight. A beautiful 3-year-old little girl, baby Maddy, reportedly snatched during a luxury resort vacation. Her parents partied down at a dinner 100 yards away, leaving baby Maddy and twin siblings there in their hotel room alone.

Bombshell tonight. In a stunning turn, Scotland Yard announces baby Maddy McCann may be alive. That`s right, in a stunning turn of events, Scotland Yard doesn`t just investigate the possibility that she may be alive, they make a formal announcement this child is very likely still alive this many years later, this after her parents had come under suspicion, many others had come under -- falsely under suspicion. Maddy McCann alive?

Tonight, across the ocean, joining us, Jerry Lawton, senior true crime correspondent with "The Daily Star." Jerry, this is an incredible turn of events, especially with Scotland Yard, they keep everything so close to the vest, to make a public and formal announcement that baby Maddy McCann is very likely alive. Not only that, that a special cop squad has been set up to find her and run down 39 active leads in the case, Jerry.

JERRY LAWTON, "DAILY STAR," (via telephone): Incredible, Nancy. I mean, it`s an astonishing development on the story, six years on since Madeleine actually disappeared.

We were summoned to a police briefing. As you say, Scotland Yard normally play their cards very close to the chest, particularly on something like this. It was quite exceptional circumstances.

And yes, at that briefing, the officer who has been appointed in charge of a 37-strong team of UK detectives now actively hunting Madeleine worldwide made the announcement that he has read all the original case files, he`s read all the files of the seven or eight teams of private detectives that the McCanns hired to try and find their daughter.

They have read everything, and he said on the record there is not one shred of evidence he has seen that suggests Madeleine is dead. Therefore, they are actively assuming that she is still alive. Incredible development.

GRACE: Straight out to Mike Walker, senior editor, "National Enquirer." Mike, what do we know?

MIKE WALKER, "NATIONAL ENQUIRER" (via telephone): Well, one of the things the police are basing this idea on is that in 2010, a guy named Wayne Hewlett (ph), who is the son of a pedophile, convicted, named Raymond Hewlett (ph), told a British newspaper that he received an unnerving letter regarding the case from his father, who`d died a week before.

Now, this guy is on his death bed, OK? He has no reason to lie, this pedophile. And he got drunk and he let it out in front of his son that he`d stolen Maddy to order as part of a gang. He said the gang had been operating for a long time. It was based in -- a gypsy gang in Portugal -- had been operating a long time.

And what they did was, they would pinpoint children, send a photo of the kid to couples who couldn`t have children of their own and who subscribed to their, you know, so-called service. And then if the person said, yes, I like this little girl -- and Maddy was a very beautiful little girl -- they would go and kidnap the child. And that`s what this guy said that he did, and the child was taken out the country, across the border into Spain.

GRACE: Out to Matt Zarrell, covering the story with me. Matt Zarrell, there have been a lot of developments, a lot of focus on a tall, thin, scraggly, dark-headed male on the beach the day baby Maddy disappeared, taking photos of children. What do you know, Matt?

MATT ZARRELL, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER (via telephone): Yes. Files reveal that on May 9th of 2007, officers interviewed the owner of a restaurant on the beach, which is about 20 minutes from where Maddy McCann was staying. And the owner recalled seeing the McCanns with their three children for (ph) the last time at the restaurant. And they revealed that they saw a strange Englishman who was spotted taking pictures of children on the beach visited by Maddy just before she went missing.

And British police were told that Madeleine had been abducted three days after being photographed by a spotter. Now, police have not located this spotter, but it is definitely a theory that they are looking at right now.

GRACE: Not only that, Alexis Tereszcuk, senior reporter, Radaronline.com -- for those of you just tuning in, a stunning development by Scotland Yard, who comes out and makes a formal announcement they believe baby Maddy McCann may very well be alive.

Years have passed since baby -- baby Maddy goes missing while her parents are at a luxury resort. That evening, they were eating about we thought 100 yards. Now it has been narrowed down to 100 feet away -- about 100 feet away, the McCann apartment, basically across the pool at a tapas restaurant, and an adult would be sent back to the apartment every 30 minutes to check on the children.

Now, isn`t it true, Alexis Tereszcuk, that one of the other parties, one of the other members of the dinner party, went back and they saw a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket, but they didn`t put two and two together?

ALEXIS TERESZCUK, RADARONLINE.COM: You`re exactly right. And this is something that was a distraction, actually -- well, no, it wasn`t a distraction, but the police were only focused on Madeleine`s parents. And so the people with that were with her actually said that they saw someone else carrying this child. This could have been their daughter.

But the police only focused on the parents for years, in fact, and they ignored so many other leads, so that with this new investigation opening, they`re going to look into everything, and this is one of the things that they`re scrutinizing because this could be a huge lead. They just -- they didn`t know at the time. They didn`t realize that what they saw could have been the child that would end up missing. It just wasn`t something that entered their thought process.

But now the police are absolutely focusing on this. And they`re trying really hard to track down every last detail. They are revisiting every single tip, every single lead, and they do feel like they`ve narrowed it down. But the parents and this other couple, none of them are considered suspects. So the 38 people, none of them...

GRACE: But what`s interesting...

TERESZCUK: ... are included in this.

GRACE: What`s interesting about it, Marc Klaas, president, founder, Klaas Kids Foundation, is that evening, they were actually afraid to bring in a hotel baby-sitter because they didn`t want somebody with the children, Maddy and her twin siblings, that they didn`t know. They were afraid that a baby-sitter unknown to them could hurt the children, would ignore the children. So they thought one of them going back every 30 minutes to check on the children would suffice.

MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Whoops, Nancy. They made a critical mistake there. You should never leave young children unattended. And in fact, in the United States, I believe it`s against -- in California, I know it`s against the law to leave very young children unattended.

GRACE: Out to the defense lawyers. Joining me tonight, Parag Shah, defense attorney, Atlanta. Also with me, veteran lawyer Renee Rockwell.

The parents came under fire when baby Maddy went missing. It turns out that there had been DNA reportedly found in the trunk, their car trunk, that matched baby Maddy. But when it was all said and done, Renee, it turns out that this car was rented 25 days after Maddy went missing.

RENEE ROCKWELL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, a little interesting that they would make such a big deal. Doesn`t it smack of JonBenet Ramsey to you? Aren`t the parents the first suspects and the first ones that need to get excluded?

But in a situation like this, you just got to hit it and move on. Ask Marc Klaas. He manned up. He showed up. He answered all the questions. You hit it, and you move on.

GRACE: Well, Parag Shah, I don`t think that the McCanns, as opposed to other cases -- I do not believe the McCanns are in any way responsible for Maddy`s disappearance. But the reality is, Parag, is that parents have to expect to be a prime suspect because statistically, they are the ones responsible when children go missing or are killed.

In this case, I don`t think that that is true. But you know, that comes with the territory of being a parent. When something happens to your child, you`re the first one the cops look at. That`s just the way it is because statistically, it`s true.

PARAG SHAH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, and that`s ridiculous because the way people should be arrested or suspects is with evidence, and these 38 suspects that they have...

GRACE: OK, I don`t know what you just said...

SHAH: I hope they find this girl...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... the way people should be arrested is with evidence? I don`t know if that`s even a sentence.

SHAH: Well, what happens is there`s a rush to judgment and somebody...

GRACE: Parag Shah, I don`t know...

(CROSSTALK)

SHAH: ... going to be arrested on this...

GRACE: Nobody`s been arrested, Parag.

SHAH: They have 38 suspects...

GRACE: They were not arrested, Parag. I don`t know what you`re talking about. They were not arrested.

SHAH: They weren`t arrested, but they were highly scrutinized, which there was no basis...

GRACE: Well, then -- OK, why don`t you...

SHAH: ... and just because parents --

GRACE: ... deal with the facts we`re talking about right now? They were not arrested. They were suspected and -- put him back up, please!

SHAH: Unfoundedly!

GRACE: Parag, have you -- Parag, I assume that you`ve tried murder cases, have you not?

SHAH: Yes.

GRACE: OK. Just out of curiosity, it`s neither here nor there, but how many, one?

SHAH: I`ve tried multiple murder cases.

GRACE: OK. So two. That`s good. Parag, the reason -- there is a reason that parents are the first suspects, that husbands are the first suspect when a woman, a wife or a girlfriend goes missing because, statistically -- you know what? Let Marc Klaas...

SHAH: This is different, though!

GRACE: ... tell you...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Please cut his mike.

SHAH: ... they had those same 38 suspects...

GRACE: Number one...

SHAH: ... back then, as well.

GRACE: ... it`s 39, and they`re not suspects. They are leads. But Marc, could you please explain to Parag Shah why parents, such as you or me, would come under suspicion first.

KLAAS: Well, because, as you said, the statistics take you there. In the vast majority of cases involving child victims, the parents are the ones involved. Unfortunately, it`s a reality that has to be dealt with.

The McCanns had to deal with it, and they just couldn`t get past the scrutiny of the authorities, and I think that that really tanked the case back six years ago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madeleine McCann was 3 years old when she disappeared from a resort.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s important that people know what I saw because, you know, I believe Madeleine was abducted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t think we can say 100 percent. I mean, you know, we`re realistic, but what we do know is there`s a very good chance that she is alive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police say they have new leads and are reopening the investigation called Operation Grange.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Out to Jerry Lawton, senior true crime correspondent, "Daily Star." Everyone, for those of you just joining us, in a disturbing and surprising about-face, Scotland Yard, police, have now announced that Maddy McCann may very well be alive. The general public had decided that Maddy McCann was dead shortly after her kidnapping. Not true.

To Jerry Lawton, joining us from "The Daily Star." Jerry, what has made them come to this announcement?

LAWTON: Well, Nancy, basically, it`s the hard work of Gerry and Kate McCann, Madeleine`s parents, who since she disappeared and despite, as you touched earlier, the scrutiny upon them, they`ve continued to fight a single (ph) campaign on their own, basically, to get people to continue to look for their daughter.

The Portuguese police archived the original case in 2008 as an unsolved mystery, and the McCanns refused to accept that, hired private detectives, and continued to, basically, fight a campaign to get somebody to look for her. They appealed directly to British prime minister David Cameron, and he listened to them. They had a direct meeting with them. He ordered British police to launch a review of original investigation, which they spent two years and 5 million British pounds doing.

And as a result of looking at those files, they have seen a whole host of unsolved leads that the British police don`t believe have been investigated, traced and eliminated to a standard that they require. And that is the process that they are now embarking upon.

They`ve still only made their way, Nancy, through two thirds of the file. There`s another one third to go. But it`s taken two years to get to that point. So you can imagine the volume of information that they are sifting through. And basically, the British police have said there are too many leads here, there`s too much that has not been done, we need to start over and do it properly.

GRACE: To Mike Walker, senior editor, "National Enquirer." What do you know about a taxi driver who has sworn under oath that he picked up Maddy McCann with a woman and three men the night she disappears?

WALKER: Yes. And he said also that he noticed a little -- Maddy had a little black spot in one eye that made her look a little bit distinctive, and he saw all that.

Now, incredibly, Nancy, this cab driver said that he was dying to be interviewed by the police, let everybody know what he had seen, and no one ever interviewed him. And that`s another possible lead here that has surfaced. And then, of course, there was the other one. Did you hear about Posh Spice or a woman...

GRACE: The lookalike? Yes, tell me.

WALKER: She looks like -- what`s her real name? I keep calling her Posh Spice.

GRACE: Victoria Beckham, Posh.

WALKER: Right. And -- Victoria Beckham. And -- and -- remember, I said that the pervert, pedophile, confessed on his death bed that a Portuguese gang -- he had helped kidnap the child for a Portuguese gang. They took her over the border into Spain.

Now, here`s another little connection that they`ve discovered. A woman -- there were reports of a woman who looked like Victoria Beckham in Barcelona, Spain. And three or four days -- four days, I guess it was- yes, May 7th, 2007 -- at a marina acting very agitated And she had possibly an Australian accent, but she spoke fluent Spanish. And she was asking, she was approaching men and saying, Are you here to give me my new daughter?

It was as if she had been told to go there and meet somebody, and she got agitated and wasn`t sure who she was supposed to meet, and she kept asking, Are you here to deliver my new daughter?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: New details in a 6-year-old cold case

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police now say they think this little girl, Madeleine McCann, may still be alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say this new evidence was a development after combing through more than 30,000 pages of documents related to the case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, we`re hoping that this actually leads to something more promising.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t really want them to have the burden of this, of having to keep looking and looking and looking and not being able to stop, you know? So we need to find her now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Is Maddy McCann alive? A stunning announcement by police that this child may very well be alive. They have called in all that they can, all the manpower, all the feet on the ground. They`ve created what is called a cop squad to find baby Maddy.

Mike Walker, senior editor, "National Enquirer," could you repeat the story? Now, this goes back to a cab driver that swears he picked up Maddy McCann with one woman and three men the night after she goes missing. Repeat?

WALKER: Yes, that`s exactly right. And he said that he saw the little black spot in one of Maddy`s eyes. It was very distinctive. And he`s absolutely sure it was her.

Now, again, you know, who knows if it was, but he is very, very sure. And all these years, he has asked and begged for the Barcelona -- the Portuguese police to interview him, and they never have. They closed this case down a year after it started, and that`s been it ever since.

Luckily, as you say, now Scotland Yard has stepped in with the British prime minister behind them and really launching something. And they`ve put together a bunch of leads, the kind of stuff that we are reporters, newspaper reporters, would be after if we had, you know, 5 million pounds to spend.

But this may just do it. And the reason there`s so many people, Nancy, involved is they`re not dealing with 38 separate, you know, suspects. They`re dealing with, obviously, gangs, rings, in other words, where, you know, you might find one ring of kidnappers, and there would be, you know, 15 or 20 people involved.

GRACE: Out to the lines. Patrick in New York. Hi, Patrick. What`s your question?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi Nancy. Love the show. I was just wondering what new evidence they`ve found that suggests that she`s still alive.

GRACE: You know what? Jerry Lawton, I`m going to go to you on that - - Jerry Lawton with "The Daily Star."

LAWTON: Hi, Nancy. Yes, I`m afraid it`s a negative, rather than a positive answer. Basically, we were told by the police who called us in to a press briefing at Scotland Yard that it`s based purely on the fact that they`ve not found one shred of evidence suggesting the opposite, that she is dead.

They have looked at multiple theories (ph), thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of witness reports, documentation. Work has been done by Interpol worldwide following up leads and sightings, and there is no evidence, particularly in the forensic area, to suggest that Madeleine is dead. Therefore, they are -- until they believe otherwise or find otherwise...

GRACE: Right.

LAWTON: ... they will go on the basis that she could well still be alive. Obviously...

GRACE: To Greg Kading, former LAPD...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... author of "Murder Rap" -- Greg, it`s very disturbing to me that all of these people -- there`s a string of them -- were not interviewed by police. How does that happen?

GREG KADING, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: It does happen, unfortunately. And you know, things fall through the cracks. An investigation is only as good as your investigators. And so if you have complacent investigators or incompetent investigators, well, that`s how your investigation is going to end up.

This is very encouraging, however, that there`s this new specialist task force, you know, with specialists involved who will -- who will re- look at everything with fresh eyes. And you have all this compelling corresponding information with a -- you know, with spotter, and you`ve got, you know, somebody saying that they saw the child later. I mean, this is a tremendously encouraging situation for Scotland Yard.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Big headline from this is police believe that she may still be alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Certainly no evidence to suggest otherwise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madeleine McCann -- British police say they have identified more than three dozen people of interest in her disappearance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They identified 38 suspects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: The parents of baby Maddie McCann never giving up in the search for baby Maddie. I want to refresh all of your recollections as to the events surrounding her disappearance that night. Out to Mike Walker, National Enquirer. Mike, if you could, please go back through the facts very carefully about the night she disappeared.

WALKER: The night she disappeared, the parents had been, as you said, checking on her. They were having dinner with some people about 300 yards away from -- pardon me, about 100 yards, 300 feet away from the room, and they were sitting around a pool. So they could see the room. They were sending somebody over. One of them would go over every 30 minutes or so to check on the children, and then suddenly of course the disappearance.

Now, what happened immediately, when the disappearance was reported, and the police arrived, the first thing the police didn`t do was secure the crime scene. People were walking all over, all around. As Scotland Yard says, you know, destroying what might have been valuable forensic evidence, or maybe not.

The next thing that happened was the police just decided arbitrarily that because both of these people were doctors, one of them a very respected cardiologist and his wife a very respected general practitioner, doctors, they decided what they were doing probably was drugging the kids so that they would stay asleep and not be a bother, and probably that`s what happened here, and she overdosed the kid and the kid died, and so they got rid of the body. Question, Nancy. Where do you get rid of a body? OK? They tried to say that rented car had DNA evidence traced. It was later proven to be wrong, wrong forensic testing. But you know, what did they do? They secretly kept the baby somewhere under the bed in the rental place where they stayed, under police supervision all those days? No. You can`t hide a body like that. Very hot in Portugal that time of year. Bodies decompose very quickly. So there`s in way that anybody can say there`s any evidence that the child had died.

And even when the Spanish -- Portuguese police brought in corpse sniffing dogs, they said we sniffed your car keys and we had a trace of a dead body. There you are. And as the doctor, as the wife pointed out, she said I handled six dead bodies just days ago, before I came to Portugal for my vacation. That`s what I do. I`m a doctor. And so there`s no evidence that the child died, but there`s a lot of evidence mounting that she may still be alive.

GRACE: And not only that, Mike Walker, police had also said they found baby Maddie`s DNA behind the sofa in that hotel, that resort hotel room. That turned out to be false. The DNA that they claimed was baby Maddie`s DNA in the car, the rental car was not her DNA. And not only that, the rental car had been rented 25 days after she disappeared.

WALKER: And the lead detective in the case, the Portuguese detective was bounced off the case after about five months, God knows why, but he then went on to write a book saying that the McCanns were killers, and he made a half a million dollars from that book.

GRACE: I hope he was sued. Was he?

WALKER: Yes, he was.

GRACE: Was it successful?

WALKER: Yes.

GRACE: With me, Mike Walker, senior editor of "National Enquirer." Also with us, Jerry Lawton, true crime correspondent, "Daily Star." What can you tell me, Jerry, about a man in the stairwell spotted by more than one witness in the stairwell near Maddie`s resort room, just 24 hours before she vanished?

JERRY LAWTON, DAILY STAR: This is a girl that`s (ph) wearing sunglasses. This is just one of approximately eight suspicious characters seen in and around the apartment within 48 hours of Madeleine`s disappearance, none of which the police have determined have actually been traced or eliminated from the investigation. Hence why there`s so much excitement. This was a guy who was spotted by (inaudible), virtually a prowler, looking suspicious, wearing sunglasses. No apparent reason for him to be there. The apartment itself is within a block of a holiday compound. He has never been traced. Amazingly, many of the people who actually stay in the neighboring apartments have never still to this day been questioned about Madeleine`s disappearance, and they were in those apartments the night she disappeared.

GRACE: Unleash the lawyers, Renee Rockwell, Parag Shah joining us. I usually don`t pile on the police, because I firmly believe that for the most part they are doing the best they can under the circumstances at the time of the incident. But in this particular case, I think it was horribly botched. They were at a resort in Portugal. The cops did not treat it as a crime scene. It was not roped off until, I think, the next day. Hotel personnel had been tromping in and out. Tons of people had come in and out. Whatever evidence may have been there was completely destroyed. The little animal that she slept with, cuddle cat, had not been tested for DNA. It was found on the floor. You know, there, the borders of the country are like going from state to state in the U.S. The countries are not huge. You can get to the country`s borders fairly quickly. They didn`t close down the borders. There were tons and tons of police mistakes, Renee.

ROCKWELL: You got to wonder, Nancy, had they been vigilant, would this child still be gone. This is a human trafficking case. You can get $200,000 for a beautiful child like that, and you got to wonder is the child in Australia, is the child in Barcelona. It`s a crying shame.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Help from private investigators has made a difference.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s a very good chance she`s alive and there`s certainly nothing to suggest otherwise.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really it`s important not to give up on Madeleine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This, they are having to keep looking and looking and looking and not being able to stop, you know. So we need to find her now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible) she`ll be found. (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police are hopeful. Authorities are asking the public to help find this little girl, wherever she may be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Take a look at the shots of Maddie McCann. I still call her baby Maddie. Liz, if you could show me several shots of her. It is her right eye as you`re viewing it, you`ll see it on the left, that has a very peculiar black mark in the middle of the iris. There you go. She`s absolutely a gorgeous child, too. Medical examiner, forensic pathologist and toxicologist, Dr. William Morrone, joining me tonight out of Madison Heights. Now if someone were to find a child that looks like baby Maddie, how quickly can it be determined if it`s really her and what is the process?

DR. WILLIAM MORRONE, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: If the authorities are in a large city and they have a university that`s reasonably equipped, they can identify her in 24 to 48 hours. But if they`re in some third world country or a rural setting, it`s going to take a couple of days. They`ll want to get dental records, want to get a DNA swab, they`ll want to get some medical records, and they will compare it to the DNA standards of the parents, which can be sent over the computer. But doing the DNA analysis on Maddie McCann, the suspected Maddie McCann, is going to take a couple of days and they`ve got to get her to a major city or a university to do that kind of work.

GRACE: What is the mark on her eye? What is that?

MORRONE: There`s pigment in the body that`s put in different places. Like the color around your iris, it`s a specific pigment that`s generic, and black specks have been put in the eye by design to reduce glare and sunlight, so that people from Northern European areas where eyes are green and blue, can tolerate the sunlight just as good as people with brown eyes. People with brown eyes tend to tan better and they don`t have the need for sunglasses. So it`s an adaptation we`ve had over thousands of years.

GRACE: Dr. Morrone, while I still have you, let me ask you this. Referring to the DNA that was in the car and the DNA that the police claim that they found behind the sofa in her rental unit, how is it that DNA can become so degraded it can no longer be used for official testing?

MORRONE: DNA is chains and strands of amino acids. And when there`s erred (ph) segments, they`re missing, they`re chopped out. And the police, with the technology at that time, tried to say, OK, this is the parents` DNA and we have some other DNA here, but there was obviously something missing, and they made some assumption. We`re much better at this, and the DNA technology has really exploded. But they made assumptions that were incorrect because of missing pieces they thought they could match up other parts. It`s like a puzzle.

GRACE: Right.

MORRONE: It was a bad move on their part, way too early.

GRACE: To Marc Klaas, president and founder of Klaas Kids Foundation. Marc, what do you believe in regards to that area of the world, as far as human trafficking. And I don`t mean just sex trafficking. I mean trafficking for adoption purposes.

KLAAS: Sure, this is baby trafficking. I think that six years later they`re going to under -- it will be an enormous challenge to be able to track down a Gypsy gang, because they tend to be very transient anyway, to be able to bring this together. But Nancy, the one thing that`s really clear is this is all happening now because of the McCanns` dogged determination to find out what happened to their daughter. That`s not the hallmark of guilty parents. It`s obvious there were huge errors made at the beginning of this investigation, and that`s why they`re in the situation they`re in now. You know, the fact that the prime minister of England has taken a personal interest in this, I think is really the driving force behind this current investigation.

GRACE: You know, to you, Jerry Lawton, senior true crime reporter joining us from the Daily Star. Everyone, it`s a parents` worst nightmare. You take your children on vacation, and they`re stolen from their rental unit, never to be seen again. British police now believe Maddie`s kidnapper may have been staying in one of the apartments very near the McCann family. What do you think?

LAWTON: Well, I think all options are open. It is indeed possible, and one of the reasons it is possible you`ve touched on is the poor investigation in the early stages. There`s a phrase that a police friend of mine uses over here on any investigation (inaudible) when a child goes missing, and that is clear the ground beneath your feet, and that means you start at the point where she was last seen, and you literally clear absolutely everything around there, working outwards, systematically and methodically, to try and determine what happened to her.

That has clearly not happened here. As we`re aware from the Portuguese police files, which are available to the media and were released following the previous investigation, people who were -- they never even found everyone who was in those apartments, staying in them the night she vanished. People were renting them privately. Some people were renting them through companies. Tour operators were renting them. And the police never did that ground work. So they don`t even know who precisely was in each apartment when Madeleine went missing. So the possibility that one of this possible gang was in that apartment or staying very close by cannot be eliminated at this stage until a far more thorough investigation has taken place.

GRACE: Matt Zarrell?

ZARRELL: Specifically they`re looking at four apartment blocks containing 59 apartments, including apartment 5a, which is where Kate and Jerry McCann were staying with Madeleine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: In a stunning about-face, Scotland Yard now says baby Maddie McCann, who was kidnapped off her family vacation, may very well be alive. Alexis Tereszcuk joining us. Senior report, Radaronline.com. What are some of the sightings of Madeleine?

TERESZCUK: Well, the night that she was taken, there was a sighting of her as I`ve spoken about earlier being carried out. There was also somebody as we spoke about in the taxicab. But there have been sightings all over the world of Madeleine. Different people have said they saw her. In fact, they have been very recent. In other spots in Europe, people saying that they suspected another little girl with blonde hair who resembled her. There were some in France, there were in Spain, which is very close to there, so it`s something that the police are looking into again, because this is giving them hope. This is finally people that are spotting this little girl and with the attention it`s brought back and her parents relentlessly staying in the media and keeping attention on their missing child. People are now saying they have seen her around.

GRACE: To Greg Cason, psychologist, Ph.D. joining me out of L.A. If baby Maddie is now found after Scotland Yard is now basically reopening the case, what difficulties, what hurdles will the family have in getting her back and assimilating her back into the family?

CASON: This will be incredibly tough for this family to go through. Because they`re going to have to have a child who does not know them. She was just a few days shy before her fourth birthday before she was taken, and now she`s almost ten. So she`s going to have a life with another family that she now knows as her family. So going back to her parents is going to be a huge adjustment. Plus, her parents are going to have to deal with the trauma of what they went through and having to not only have a huge sigh of relief, but have to deal with all the emotional feelings that have been coming up and been pent up over these last six years.

GRACE: But how do you do it? How do you do it, Doctor? How do you get over the hurdle? What do you do with a child that doesn`t even know you anymore?

CASON: You know, it`s going to take a long time. They`re going to have to acclimate her and have her be a part of the family, tell her the story of what happened. She was probably told the story that if she does have any memories, that her original family didn`t want her. I`m sure that was part of it. Plus, this little girl might be angry that her parents didn`t protect her, that they didn`t keep her from being abducted. So the parents are going to have to take a long, slow re-acclimation process. Work with therapists and other health professionals in order to have them come back together as a family unit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Everyone, Labor Day coming up. We celebrate a very special group of workers, working moms. Are you a working mom? Do you know one who deserves recognition for hard work at home and at work? I want to hear from you. Send us a video explaining why you or your loved one is the best working mom in America. Five videos with the most votes wins my signature handcuff necklace, earrings, t-shirts, the works. Details, go to nancygrace.com. After you go to the website, send in those videos.

Tonight, we remember American hero, Army Specialist Shane Ahmed. 31, Chesterfield, Michigan. Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal. Parents Jamal and Subra (ph). Brother Assif (ph). Widow Ava (ph). Daughter Evita. Son Evan. Shane Ahmed, American hero.

Is baby Maddie alive? She`s not a baby anymore. Every parent`s worst nightmare. They took baby Maddie, just a stunning little girl, on vacation with her twin younger siblings. They go to dinner nearby, checking on her every 30 minutes. They find that she has been taken from her bed. With me from the Daily Star, true crime correspondent Jerry Lawton. So many theories circulating, cops looking for a pock-marked male. What can you tell me about that?

LAWTON: Well, the pock-marked male has featured quite heavily since the very early days of the inquiry. And this is something the Portuguese police originally looked at. This was a guy who was seen hanging around the resort three or four days prior to Madeleine`s disappearance. And he was seen basically first of all on the beach. He looked out of place on what is largely a holiday beach. And what is a quaint Portuguese resort. Not a large resort. And this guy seemed to be looking at children from the fun club that Madeleine actually attended during her holiday. I stress Madeleine wasn`t among those girls, but that -- he was showing what was described as an unhealthy interest.

GRACE: They are at the club where they, like a kids club at a hotel or a cruise ship, where parents leave them with babysitters. Everyone, the search for baby Maddie goes on. As we go to break tonight, happy birthday to Shirley Talbert. Mother, grandmother, loved her husband dearly, Dave Talbert, who has just passed on, who fought in Vietnam. She loves arranging flowers, and she bakes the best sugar cookies in the world. Happy birthday, Ms. Talbert. Everyone, Dr. Drew up next. I`ll see you tomorrow night 8:00 sharp Eastern. Until then, good night, friend.

END

Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interview with Huw Edwards. BBC1 - 2nd May

Gerald MC : I think it's not been a conscious preparation because we both hoped we wouldn't get to that stage but I think that what we have done has been incredibly busy in the background, erm there's a lot of work in the investigation side, it's kept me incredibly busy over the last four to six weeks, Kate has more to do with the Amber campaign for the young children..

Kate MC : I mean it's pretty much a day by day, week by week, to be honest, I mean I don't look too far ahead really, erm as Gerry said we didn't want to get to this point, and now that we've got to this point we need to use the opportunity I guess, to focus on what is more important, which is Madeleine.

Huw Edwards : You're making a very big effort to get the message out again so, in its latest form, what is the message you're giving on this first anniversary ?

KMC : The message is Madeleine is still missing and she needs to be found and we guess we are urging people to help us still and I know people have helped us from day one, but we still need the help and Madeleine still needs that help and we need that key bit of information with which it could be over (makes a gesture "it's so simple").

GMC : (looking at the public) Sure, really this is really a direct appeal. We wouldn't be here if we weren't appealing to the public to come forward, to those who actually have actually phoned with information may it be to the police or hotline, we want you to rack your brains if you were then in PDL, someone knows something, that could unlock this and that's the key for us getting that information (bending to pick up a poster that he presents to the camera saying distinctly the hotline number) I would ask to show this, if it's ok, we have a new hotline number, We will guarantee anonymity for anyone who wants it, all information will be treated confidentially

HE : You've been very thorough, you had a very high profile over the past year, what makes you think...

GMC : (interrupting) I have another (? desire ?)

HE : But of course but at least it has been effective in campaigning terms, that high profile, what makes you hope that the year on someone is going to turn up a factor, a hint which  could make the difference ?

KMC : (interrupting) Well, she's still missing, she hasn't been found (video skips.. There is still that bit of information). And you know somebody definitively knows something and they may not realize that, but you know it's linked, you know there might be something they remember from that day or around that day, erm... which is vital, it just takes a few things to slot into place.

GMC : I think that's right thought, because that time of year people are going to be saying, thinking about summer holidays, is going away, last time was here and it would bring it home to people.

HE : When have you lost contact with the Portuguese police about the investigation ?

GMC : I think we don't really have direct contact or some contact, but there is some contact with our Portuguese solicitor.

HE : You asked for information ? Did you ask for updates on the campaign or have you just given up with asking ?

GMC : We would very much like to know exactly what has been done, what hasn't been done, who has been eliminated and on what grounds and just what leads have still been actively followed and that information hasn't, erm been forthcoming to us...

KMC : This is a crime, this is a horrific crime against a young child and I think we need to focus on that, you know Madeleine is still missing, an hideous crime has been committed, and that person is still out there.

HE : As fellow parents, we talk about the case obviously, it's a natural thing to do, it's been in the forefront of people's minds. One of the questions that lots of people asked during these months is how do you maintain the hope that you might find her alive, what keeps that hope in place ?

KMC : Number one, Madeleine is so important to us.. and Sean and Amelie. Number two there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence that any harm has come to her and three, if you look at for example the States, where you know they have a lot os statistics related to this kind of crime, children are recovered, you know, a lot of children are recovered and the younger the child the better the chances are.

GMC : As a parent, you know, you cannot give up on your child, you wouldn't give up and you would do anything...

KMC : (interrupting) And what a disservice it would be to Madeleine to assume otherwise without any evidence !

HE : How do you manage life at home with your twins who, as you said many times, deserve as normal upbringing as they can be given in the circumstances, how do you keep that going ... Where do you get your strength from.. to do that ?

KMC : I think the children can be the strength for sure, you know, Sean and Amelie are amazing little people and they are very happy and actually they have a very normal life, and they go to the nursery two days a week and the other days, when they're at home, we just do the normal things that anyone would do with the children.. and we do spent a lot of the evenings working obviously and phone calls, emails and things. But their life is as normal as it could be, but they haven't got a big sister.

HE : How present is Madeleine in the house ? I mean you talk...

KMC : Very.

HE : ... So that doesn't change in that sense.

GMC : (speaking over) Madeleine is still a big part of Sean and Amelie's life and they have still spent two thirds of their life with Madeleine been ever present and these constant reminders.. and we've taken a lot of professional advice about how best to manage the situation and whether they would have been adapting as well as they have (laugh), without that advice I think probably they would, but for much further reassurance (?)... they have been fantastic, I don't think we would have coped without them, but there has been a big extended family role, friends in this and the overwhelming support we've had from the vast majority of the public has really helped lift us and driven us on. In Praia da Luz and the days afterwards and erm.. the feeling was almost like a tidal wave and motion came back and that really helped lift us.

KMC : It still does, I mean we still get so much mail and support of people and it really does lift you, you know, it's...

HE : Do you mind my asking something that lots of parents have asked me which is what do you say to your young twins when they ask questions, I mean how have you dealt with that with their questions and inquiries ?

KMC : Well I guess they are still only 3, I mean as Gerry said they talk of Madeleine a lot, which is lovely. You know, they just say that Madeleine is missing and we say, yes but we are looking for her, but it doesn't really go to any more depth than that and it doesn't need to at the minute.. because you know, can I ask anything else ? You know we've always believed and we've been told the best is to be honest with them.

HE : There is often in the press where people say things, you know, like you can't show emotion and all the rest of it when you are already under enormous pressure, how do you cope with that ?

KMC : We'd be lying if we said it wasn't hurtful and it's amazing how so many people could have such an opinion of things they know nothing about but again it's a development you know and yes it takes you away from it for a minute, but you just have to get back on track, you know..

HE : You had a very high profile visit to Europe where you were promoting the Amber Alert scheme and there are signs today that the support for that among members of Parliament is still growing, erm.. why have you locked on into this particular scheme as one which you liked to promote ?

GMC : One of the things we encountered are (?) very, very early one and clearly as a parent when your child goes missing you want everything done and even though that night we were saying things like the border has been alerted, the ports, various things, and you worry is that child is going to be moved and moved quickly far away from the scene of the crime...

HE : (interrupting) You both were very honest about the questions you asked about your own actions when Madeleine disappeared and the doubts you had and the criticism you levelled at yourselves. Are you finding it easier not to be self-critical a year on, or not ?

GMC : We've talked a year ago and from the minute we discovered Madeleine missing, we tried to focus on what can still be done and dwelling on the negative you can't change what's happened and, as much as we'd love to have turned the clock back and decided not to have gone erm to Tapas erm restaurant that night. We can't change it and what we need to focus on and what we're asking the public to do is to concentrate on what can still be done, Madeleine is a gorgeous little girl, she's still out there and, you know, we're asking for help to find her.

HE : And for those who (?) the campaign has been running maximum energy for a year and do they ask questions on how long can you sustain that kind of campaign with that kind of energy and commitment that it needs, the fact that it clearly affects your entire lives, what do you say to people ?

KMC : You know I only care for Madeleine (?). You know, I want Madeleine back, I need to have Madeleine and... that's all that keeps us going

[Acknowledgement pamalam at gerrymcannsblogcouk]

Madeleine McCann Case on Spanish TV 4 Feb 25,2010



Transcript by "Reme"
Translation by Mercedes
With thanks to "Himself" for English grammar

00:55 - Concha Garcia Campoy: We have news in the "Maddie" case. The book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie" that was written by former Police Co-ordinator Gonçalo Amaral, will remain prohibited in Portugal as we informed here previously.

Earlier this year, it was provisionally withdrawn from the bookstores at the request of the McCanns and now the courts have just ratified the measure. Jerónimo Boloix, how are you, good afternoon. And we have a person who knows much about this case, the author of a blog, Mercedes how are you?

Can you interpret what happened as a new victory for the McCanns?

Mercedes: A momentary victory. The fact that someone bans the freedom of speech of the police or any person, is very, very, difficult to maintain in a court, Gonçalo Amaral is prepared to appeal to the European Court, and he will, he is a strong man and this is a struggle they have between them and I think in the end ...

Concha: It seems it is true that the struggle is to reopen the case, is that right Jerónimo? What he wants is to know the truth ... is taking a risk, a risk from the very start...

Mercedes: Yes

Jerónimo Boloix: I think that even though this first ruling is contrary to the interests of Amaral, it may facilitate the reopening of the case, I think Gonçalo should appeal this ruling and contribute to the case. What surprises me greatly is that they are trying to silence the book, and we have just seen a few seconds ago Paulo Sargento's statements.

Concha: Wait a minute, now that you mention this, because it is an exclusive statement of the forensic psychologist, who has been involved in the case from the start, and Alejandro Vazquez has been with him and actually he is absolutely certain; listen.

Exclusive Interview with Paulo Sargento.

Video: Pictures of Madeleine playing with her brothers

Alejandro Vázquez: You've worked on the Madeleine case from the beginning.

Paulo Sargento: From the beginning, from the second day after the disappearance.

Alejandro Vázquez: And what's your theory?

Paulo Sargento: I think the girl died on May 3, and it would have been utterly impossible for the kidnapping to have taken place. The abduction has been a media construction only, because there is not one supporting fact to support this.

Alejandro Vázquez: Why the McCanns are now saying that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead?

Paulo Sargento: Because their (the McCann's) interpretation is contrary to death, in fact there is evidence: corpse odour, the scent of human blood and there is a set of forensic evidence, evidence that the girl is dead unfortunately.

Alejandro Vázquez: Can your surmise that with such evidence that there has been a murder, manslaughter...

Paulo Sargento: Yes.

Alejandro Vázquez: ...the case has been shelved.

Paulo Sargento: I am sure that were it a Portuguese couple, the treatment wouldn't have been the same. The forensic evidence would have been constituted as proof, and probably the couple would be in prison.

Alejandro Vázquez: How would you define Gerry and Kate's behaviour?

Paulo Sargento: They have changed the roles, also advised by image consultants, from the beginning Cuddle Cat in her hands, and then we saw that Kate disappeared from scene and Gerry took over the leadership. Gerry is very aggressive. He is very, very aggressive, he is a man who is very impulsive... ahhh, Maddie disappeared, between quotes, and Gerry McCann asked for a priest, if my daughter disappears I would ask for more police ... after that he requested an image consultant, to me it would be better to ask for more police. If somebody presents me the first piece evidence of an abduction, I'll shut up forever, but real evidence and discussed in a logical manner.

Alejandro Vázquez: How can we understand now that the accused is Gonçalo...?

Paulo Sargento: Gonçalo Amaral represents symbolically, what Gerry and Kate do not want, the death, and their participation in concealing the body. Because he has been the Chief Inspector, has left the police, has published a book that says the same as the process.

Alejandro Vázquez: Are you confident that at some point the truth will be known, and the process reopened?

Paulo Sargento: I believe in justice; I believe that Justice will be done, I don't know when.

Alejandro Vazquez: Thank you for everything.

Paulo Sargento: Thank You.

End of the Video

Concha: Mother! He speaks clear, categorical, absolutely, eh... Do you think, as he says that if the McCanns were Portuguese they would be in jail? What do you feel Mercedes?

Mercedes: Of course, without a doubt. Parents who recognize that they left three small children alone, under four years of age, to have dinner and they say they were passing by every half hour, which has been shown, that at least the night before this was not true, there is a statement that appears in the Process of a neighbour who heard the girl crying for an hour and a half the night before, that for any other couple...

Alfonso Egea: It's not a hypothesis; there have been examples in Portugal. There was one case of a child and the mother was not only suspected but was imprisoned, obviously the nationality of the McCanns plays an important role here. Now after hearing Paulo Sargento imagine...

Concha: Because he is precise, she is dead. There are no forensic doubts.

Alfonso Egea: I guess the next move for the McCanns will be to request this man to shut up too and if this was up to them, everyone should shut up ...

Jerónimo Boloix: The most shameful of all this is that, as Paulo Sargento said, the book reflects the status of the investigation. The person who spoke is a forensic psychologist who has been involved with the case from the beginning. He said white and in a bottle... (Spanish riddle: white and in a bottle... The obvious answer is: milk). The only thing he didn't say is when these people should go to prison. But let's be realistic here, what is happening, is a political struggle by the British Government against the Portuguese Government, this is preventing further clarification, and unfortunately, we may be in a situation of a judicial lie. There an issue that we must not forget, this little girl disappeared on May 3, three years ago, and no one is looking for her because no one cares for her. There are instructions from the parents, individuals and institutions that support the parents in their bogus search for the girl.

Concha: Well, it's true that, in addition to what yourself and Paulo Sargento have said, it is clear that, when a child is missing and the first thing you do not do is call a priest, the first thing I would do is call the police, here they requested an image consultant, not more police to investigate, now that's...

Mercedes: I can say that the first article was published at 1 minute past 12 on May 4th. We can see in the process that the first call to police from the Ocean Club's reception was at twenty to eleven PM... ummm, the timings just don't fit.

Alfonso Egea: You know very well that, that summer, they shared time with a television producer, who was the second person to receive a call, incomprehensible...

Mercedes: Actually...

Jerónimo Boloix: Equally incomprehensible is that having access to the future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, they didn't request top British specialists, Scotland Yard, but this image consultant, this is pure and simply an agreement in that the image of the McCanns must appear above suspicion in the matter of their daughter's...

Concha: It surprises me more, Mercedes, and some will think and I believe with good reason, you must be the person that knows more about this case here, because you have collected most of the information... "Until we know the truth". Well, what a commitment, no? You've made a commitment to Gonçalo Amaral and, do you think that we will know the truth if people like you don't throw the towel...?

Mercedes: I think we are all helping each other on the internet, there are currently very few media outlets that are treating this, like today, in a serious way, nobody wants to censure the parents, the aim is to allow the police to do their job, nothing more. You can see very clearly that there was external pressure, no matter from whom; there has been pressure to close a case that was ongoing, something that is unprecedented in an investigation of this nature.

Jerónimo Boloix: I want to ask Mercedes if you know the reason why this trial that has been held now, against Gonçalo Amaral's book, why haven't they admitted a witness or why haven't the English witnesses appeared?

Mercedes: They were pressured. They claimed they were under official secret. Official secrecy is something that has been invoked on several occasions. There are journalists who have requested information and reply they have received, is that it could not be provided because the case was under the Official Secrets Act.

Concha: If a Prime Minister is related....

Jerónimo Boloix: But Justice for the girl and ascertaining what happened to her, I think it is paramount...

Concha: Well Mercedes, it has been a pleasure, many thanks. We will contact you again when we review this case that I find so very interesting.

Mercedes: Thank you; thank you very much for addressing this issue seriously and for providing an opportunity for Madeleine. Everyone gives the opportunity to Kate and Gerry McCann."

[Acknowledgement: pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Transcript of radio interview Brian Johnson: Faked Abduction

Source: Paul Drockton Radio Show

[Note: Brian Johnson is Steve 'Stevo' Marsden]

Paul: Good afternoon, this is Paul Drockton, you're listening to the Paul Drockton radio show and we've got a special guest today, Steve Marsden who is also a published author. And we're going to talk about the er, the potentially faked abduction of Maddie McCann and basically, just to get this started ...Brian, er Steve is basically a British citizen and moved to the United States a few years ago and he's done quite a bit of work with er, er, computers and programming. He's also a licensed pilot, and drives or fly's British aircraft. In addition to that he studies history, photography, soccer, rugby, travel, and he considers himself quite the expert on ['cadaver'] and done quite a bit of research on what we refer to as the Davinci Code. In fact he's been to Rosslyn chapel quite a few times.

So, let me ask yer, erm, er Brian, what do you think er is the most critical thing we need to know about Maddie'

Steve (Brian): That's a good question, really er Paul and thanks for having me on the show today. Ermm...the story, story's just exploded from, you know, three years ago May 3rd when she disappeared. Ermm..it's just been, a government conspiracy, a British government conspiracy to er, cover up the true circumstances of the disappearance from day one. I think that's the most insidious aspect to the nature of the British government intervening in the case. They didn't let the Portuguese police get on with their job, and er, this was exploited with the British media to a sort of a propaganda campaign against the investigators like from day one. And erm...

Paul: So when you say investigators, who, who, who would you name as, or who would you consider to be the investigators of this story'

Steve (Brian): Well he main investigators were the Portuguese CIE which er, the PJ which er judiciario they're like the equivalent of er, probably like the FBI in the USA. they're, they're, you know, higher than the sort of average police guy on the street and erm, the leader of that investigation was Goncalo Amaral and he was on the case from day one and through till October 2nd 2007.

Paul: Can you kind of give us a review of what the, er Portuguese FBI found in this case'

Steve (Brian): Erm, well they were investigating it, getting you know, they were, they were pretty much led in the investigation by this group known as the Tapas9 which were the nine people, Madeleine's parents with seven other couples ' seven other people er...sorry, er three couples and another lady. And they were kinda leading the investigation down the road of abduction but with very little evidence. And...the

Paul: How, how are these ...I'm going to interrupt you as we go along because some people are not as familiar with this as...you know, you are obviously and we wanna make sure that we cover some of the questions that they probably have, so we're talking about seven individuals ...are these individuals like co-conspirators ...would you...are they, are we talking about a paedophile ring' What, what exactly are we referring to'

Steve (Brian): Erm, each of the couples, as I say, there's four couples and another lady so that there's nine people, nine adults and eight children in the group. They were just friends erm, in each of the couples were at least, like
Kate and Gerry the parents of Madeleine they were both doctors, er, in the other couples there was at least one doctor so they all knew each other from medical school, erm, they went out on the vacation to Portugal for one week, the vacation was organised by one of the doctors within in the group, David Payne...and erm, you know, they pretty much went on what a lot of people would consider an adult holiday er vacation. They went erm, they left the children each day in a daytime, sort of day care cr'he facility and then in the evening they would go out socialising and leave the children back in the apartment so, you know, first question is....

Paul: Were there other children that were with Madeleine' Is that what we're talking about here'

Steve (Brian): Well, each of the couples had their respective children you know, so according to their own alibis they had left the children each night in the apartments while they went out socialising.

Paul: Gochyer. What was the oldest child' Do you know' I mean...

Steve (Brian): Well, they were all toddlers pretty much, babies in arms or kind of, you know, in strollers or you know, three, four year old. That sort of age range.

Paul: So are we talking about.... they basically locked these kids up at night while they went out and partied'

Steve (Brian): Well that's a good question because on the original er witness statements on the day after she disappeared on May 3rd ...on May 4th witness statements from Gerry and Kate they spoke of erm entering the apartment from a locked door. So clearly in that case you're right it was locked, but their alibi soon changed to er, entering the apartment through the patio doors which they claimed to have left open.

Paul: So....I guess what I'm trying get at here is you know, very minimum this is a case of neglect, I mean if you're talking about toddlers and I'm assuming they're still in diapers [diapers = nappies] or at least some of them were...

Steve (Brian): That, that...absolutely in diapers ...they even mentioned that so yes absolutely.

Paul: So minimal charges that could have been filed here were child neglect charges, the fact that they left them er, reportedly left them unsupervised and er, okay, I apologise so ....In, in your book you talk about er, there's certain questions that er... 48 questions that Kate did not answer. So Kate's the mother of Madeleine correct'

Steve (Brian): yep, yep that's right. Kate Healy.

Paul: Okay, so tell us a little about what their story was and then tell us, you know, where you see the holes.

Steve (Brian): Well the very first, we have to look at the very first story in the police file, the witness statements from the day after er, she went missing when they were taken into the police station to give their first account. So the very first account erm, were that ....

Paul: would it be okay if we took calls through this show as well' Oh I'm sorry Brian,
Steve (Brian): Oh yeah. Absolutely.

Paul: I'm gonna take one, take on right now

Steve: Okay.

Paul: Give me one second ...okay so, ...we lost the caller so...okay, I'm sorry, go ahead...

Steve (Brian): Okay, so, so , yeah...I've got a chapter in my book how the story unfolded and basically, it.... this, this was unanimous that the window and the shutter into the bedroom, the children's bedroom had been jimmied open or broken, erm, every single person that spoke to the media in the hours after the, er disappearance said that the window had been broken and she'd been snatched through this window, but the interesting thing is that when we see the police forensics erm, dusting the shutter and window for prints on the morning of May 4th, those prints were subsequently found to show that there was only Kate's and, I think, the police officer who probably examined the window on the night, they were the only prints found on the window. But 94 days after the disappearance and this is crucial, Kate was still telling the world that the window had been smashed open.

Paul: the window, the window was intact and someone had actually appeared to jimmy the door, correct'

Steve (Brian): NO! No, there were no signs of damage whatsoever

Paul: Hmm, just the fingerprints on that door perhaps, so the bottom line is what we're talking about here is perjury pretty much. Did she say this in court or was there...something else like that'

Steve (Brian): No, they never had any inquest and they never erm, they were never formally charged. Nobody's ever been formally charged with any offenses in connection, apart from there's a few people who tried to collect money on behalf of the official Madeleine Fund. Obviously that's sort of...

Paul: Well, that's a big issue I think to...we're gonna get back to it, first we'll take a little commercial break and I'd like invite yer to visit Crystals Trading er, if you're considering buying gold or silver or if you're considering buying more gold and silver you can go to my website er deadmansmusings or Paul drock MA and as you know one of the most popular websites in the entire world er, simply because of our investigative journalism and because of the guests, the high quality guests that we have right here on our program. So if you can visit my website, you'll see that there's an ad there for Crystals Trading, the phone number is 888 385 1116 and yer wanna talk to Mike. And they are just amazing erm and able to find what you want as far as gold bullion and silver bullion erm, at the lowest possible cost er yer gold bullion and silver coins whatever it is that yer need to convert your cash into hard currency so that you literally don't lose it during these times of economic er hardship and we're literally on that kind of verge of collapse here in the United States. Gold and silver are really the only safest thing you've got left er for your retirement and for your savings. So give er Crystals Trading a call the numbers 888 385 1116.....

...okay, so Brian let's back outta here and so what you're saying is this, that er there is no signs of forced entry correct'

Brian: Correct

Paul: And the question I've got is that, how much money has this lady rasied er for this fund'

Brian: Oh, the family erm wasted no time in setting up like an official er fund to collect the money, er within days of the disappearance and it was a well oiled machine, they used a very high powered firm of London lawyers to er, set the fund er going and erm, that was kind of a mystery in itself because the family live nowhere near London so they were well connected with a lot of high powered influential people in setting up this fund which raised probably in the region of 4 to 5 million dollars

Paul: amazing. I mean let's just examine this, I mean this to me is, you know, again thinking about this case is that here you have a er, purportedly grieved parent...right...and, how, how, what was the time between the disappearance the er setup of this er fund' This request for donations'

Brian: Erm, well they had a website domain registered on May 11th and she disappeared on May 8th ...er sorry, May 3rd so that was what, 8 days. And then on May 15th er, four days after that was the official Limited Company that's formed.

Paul: To raise, to raise donations. Now what types of activities have we seen that they've done to you know, find Madeleine, supposedly even look for her, er where's this money gone, have they spent it on searching for Madeleine'

Brian: No, the thing is they've employed some private detectives in the first years of accounts there was 250,000 which is approximately half a million dollars back then with a group called Metodo3 and staying in Barcelona, Spain, this is an outfit that had no track record in looking for people so first of all the recruitment of this company is called into question anyway


Paul: Yeah, so bottom line is what you're saying is they brought in a bunch of amateurs er that they knew were not the best people for the job.

Brian: Right, right

Paul...so looks like as if er and you said that was 250,000 ...have you seen the other expenditures that were made by this fund'

Brian: Yeah, the company have also spent money on a guy called Kevin Halogen who's actually awaiting deportation from the UK to the US erm, he's implicated in some er there was a warrant out for his arrest in, I think in the State of Virginia last year erm, because of some embezzlement kind of, type of er activity in the DC area.

Paul: So we're talking about er...was he...let me ask you this...was he a produciaree(') in this fund, did he handle money er...what role did he play, do you know'

Brian: Who, who are you talking about now' Halogen'

Paul: Yeah.

Brian: No, I mean there's no sign that he was connected with the fund erm, I don't think there's any signs on the surface if you like of anybody that they've spent money with as being ....er..use the word, say money laundering or whatever but I mean, it's just that the choice of the company that, the people, the investigators that they used, they just don't seem to have any track so if they're using donated funds, you know, why isn't anybody questioning erm, like, surely you'd go to a company that's had successes in finding people.
Paul: Yeah, which they haven't...and has there been any, let me ask you this, has there been any efforts in Portugal to find er Maddie'

Brian: No, er when the police erm, the police wound up the case after, almost after a year of the cold case er, because they didn't have enough evidence to bring about a prosecution so it's been shelved as a cold case but erm, i don't think Portugal have ever really followed the line of a missing person in terms of looking for her because they believed that she, she died erm in the apartment, that was their conclusion, that's why I wrote my book. My book is actually really just about the conclusion and why the Portuguese police concluded that she had died in the apartment

Paul: Let's focus on that ...so tell me; tell me why er the Portuguese police determined that Madeleine had died in the apartment

Brian: Erm, well first of all they couldn't find any evidence of any ...there's no physical evidence of abduction apart from the Tapas9 saying she was abducted. Erm, there's no, there's no, there was no evidence of any person going through that window, there was no scuffmarks there was no...the Lichen [lie-ken'] on, on the window as not marked in any way ermm...

Paul: The moss correct'

Brian: The moss, yes.

Paul: Okay

Brian; So here was no sign of anybody taking her through that window, erm, and you know, there was so many contradictions in the ever changing alibis. So, they brought in erm, a police expert dog handler called Martin Grime who erm, had a cadaver dog and a human blood sniffing dog and er, they brought this guy in and he works for the FBI, he works around the world, his dogs have got international passports so they're used in a lot of international cases with a lot of success and never had any failures and they went into the apartment, I spoke to Martin Grime personally in December a couple of times and er, he outlined the search procedure to me and you know, when he was introduced into the case erm, he called it a clearing run to go into the apartment, he had no idea or any preconceived notion that the dogs would alert in that apartment, but they alerted in the McCanns apartment

Paul: they alerted for blood correct.

Brian: Well first of all he puts the cadaver dog in there and of course if the cadaver dog senses there's a dead body then he brings in the blood sniffing dog. So, two dogs were deployed separately but the two dogs alerted in the same places.

Paul: Yeah, that's amazing, I mean that ...so the bottom line is the cadaver dog identified that there was a dead body in that house or in that apartment.

Brian: Correct...and that...

Paul: So...and they also found blood...I'm sorry, go ahead.

Brian: yeah, I was going to make the point ...I even asked Martin Grime, I said well what's the chances of somebody planting some evidence in there because you know, there is a product pseudo scent which is often used to train these cadaver dogs but Martin assured me that his dogs do not alert to the manmade product so he said, the only way he could see erm, you know, evidence of the dead body in an apartment is if somebody had gone to the morgue you know, and introduced a real dead body oe you know, items relating to a dead body in there.

Paul: could cadaver been from someone died previously, I mean, how long does the scent stay in the apartment' I mean how long....

Brian: Well, the police checked the apartment and there was no record of anybody having died before or after the McCanns stayed in the apartment.

Paul: Hm. So bottom line is er this gentleman is saying this dog will not alert on any artificial substance er, that there would have actually have been a dead body in that apartment for the dog to alert and then the second dog was brought in and found blood ...okay...so the question I've got for yer is ... what's the response from er Kate and er and these dogs, what did she say'

Brian: Ermm...well, the response was that she said she'd come into contact with six dead bodies in her work as a GP as a General Practitioner in the weeks preceding the vacation

Paul: what did the dog hander say to that explanation'

Brian: Er he didn't. He said you know, I mean he's a very professional he didn't make any opinion ot me erm, because as he says his dogs are just a tool in the process, it's up to the forensics after the dogs have gone in to...you know they're, they're ...the dogs are finding a needle in a haystack after that it's down to the forensic guys to examine the needle. So you know....

Paul: have they been able to document that she did in fact was around six dead bodies before she went into the apartment'


Brian: Well that's one of these factual things that, you know, we know she said that but there's been no proof or collaboration of that.

Paul: um hum...So bottom line is er, obviously what we have here is we have every reason to suspect there's enough evidence there to launch a criminal investigation and obviously it sounds like Portugal ..This is outside of their jurisdiction right now or ... you tell me. Would they have to actually bring her back into the country for trial or...

Brian: Well, in Portugal, the way there judicial system works they were actually named as official defendants or arguidos in September, early September of 2007, this was soon after the dogs had gone in, just over a month after that and the legal status as an arguido meant they had to report to a police station every five days, er within every week I think it was, you know, there were certain conditions and erm, that legal status only...er...either had to bring about charges or they had to erm, free them from that legal status. So in the summer of 2008 they were actually released from that status when the case was shelved as a cold case. Now the McCanns told the world that they were officially cleared, well that's not true they were not officially cleared because they were never officially charged, they were just ... er...they had their arguido status er rescinded.

Paul: So one of the things we have here of course is that er, not just manipulation but this is the thing, it sounds as if these people's stories have changed now, it's er, it's basically changed to suit whatever information comes out.

Brian: Oh...it certainly has. I mean that's one of the noticeable aspects of the case that, for instance er, when the police made their er appropriate international rogatory requests with the British government to er, interview some of the suspects in England in 2008 obviously this was a vacation, most of the people had gone back home so, you know, they had to follow it up with interviews in the UK which they did substantially in April 2008 ermm...

Paul: You say 'they'...who's the investigators here.

Brian: Well, the Portuguese investigators then liaised with the British, er the British police in the er the county where the McCanns live, this is Leicestershire constabulary and so most of these er rogatory interviews were conducted in Leicester in England and erm, they also made requests for, you know, documentations for instance the McCanns financial records, the erm, medical records of Madeleine but the British government intervened and would not allow Madeleine's medical records to be disclosed

Paul: Mmmm....that's crazy. So we're talking about conspiracy goes right to the top. We're going to take another quick commercial break here and then we'll come back er to the story. So obviously what you're hearing here is disturbing, disgusting and er this is what we do, this is what the purpose of my radio show is, Paul Drockton radio and also the purpose of my site is to expose these criminals and you know I haven't asked Brian's opinion on this but I'm assuming these people, if they are guilty of this are also involved in the occult, Satanism, there's gotta be some connection, there usually is when we talk about paedophiles. If you would like to make a contribution to this effort er you can go to my website and for as little as $5 a month you can become a sponsor. Or if you have a small business you want to advertise as well we have programmes. And as a site you need over 44,000 unique visits per month and obviously here on our radio show we have thousands of visitors that listen in. So, if you want to be part of this, go to my website deadmansmusings or Paul Drockton and er, click on the 'urgent' and become a sponsor for site radio button.

Okay, so here's a question I've got, obviously all this is leading to the conclusion, at least I'm having...there's a conspiracy going on here and erm, can you tell us more about that'

Brian: Well, the amazing thing is as I say, the amount of British government intervention and when I say that I'm talking about the highest level of cabinet ministers,, er, Tony Blair was the Prime Minister at the time er, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor, both of these people made personal phone calls to the McCanns and notably in Kate's diary she refers to those people has Tony and Gordon as if she's got some prior connection with these people, erm, you know, there's a certain familiarity with these people that erm, transcends a normal persons er, if you like, relationship with the government and that's never been disclosed and I think as public servants, publically elected servants Gordon Brown and Tony Blair should be made to answer for what they're real role was in the McCann case.

Paul: um hum...so the bottom line is er, I guess it is a question that the reason, that I'm thinking to myself here is, these other kids that were there erm, were they interviewed, were they talked to at all'

Brian: That's an interesting point as well you see, er, in Gerry McCann's interview when he was made an official defendant he claimed that the twins weren't capable of speech but we have a lot of anecdotal evidence where relatives in the family say oh the twins have asked when is Madeleine coming back so we know they did have a good grasping of speech erm, but they never bothered to speak to the children, the twins, er Madeleine had two er twin brother and sister they were younger, they were two years old, er, but notably as well erm Paul on the night in question the twins were fast asleep and with all the commotion in the apartment they never woke and that was a point noted by several police officers.


As well as Fiona Payne who was one of the Tapas9 erm, and she actually commented that Kate kept going up to the twins and putting her hand on their mouth to see if they were breathing. And with all this commotion for several hours the twins just didn't wake up.


Paul: that's interesting. So the bottom line is, is that, okay so they did find blood though, or they did scent blood in the apartment so the question is, is it possible that the, you know, maybe the er, suspected murder took place outside of the apartment'

Brian: Well, I don't think that er...you, you used the word murder there, erm, I don't think Portugal has ever claimed it to be a murder and...

Paul: aha...I said suspected murder so...I mean, I can express my opinion and that's what I'm doing.

Brian: Sure, sure, well Goncalo Amaral he erm, he puts forward the theory that she climbed on the sofa and fell off while unattended erm, I personally don't believe that, you know, but who am I to say...if she died in the apartment erm, there was some erm reports and early reports in September of 07 talking about a blood spray pattern on the wall er [commencing'] a fractured larynx so you know...

Paul: I'm sorry, a fractured...'

Brian: Larynx in the throat. There's a branch of forensics that can examine erm you know, where a wound was inflicted from the blood spray pattern on the wall or something.

Paul: Are we talking about literally, I mean this is, you know I'm going to ask the questions, but we're talking about she could have had her throat slit'

Brian: Ermmmm....I mean, I mean there is no particular evidence in the files or anywhere to say if she died how it occurred and erm, I mean one of the cadaver dog also alerted in a flowerbed outside the apartment er, the veranda was about, I'd say, about eight feet above ground level, so she could have climbed and fallen off and fallen into a flowerbed for example. You know, there's numerous theories...

Paul: the bottom line is you're talking about a blood splatter pattern here that seems consistent with someone who er, I mean, if you fracture larynx erm, that's not going to spray blood, if someone cuts yer that's going to spray blood and so, I mean this again, I'm just speculating here. But the point is, there's plenty of evidence there for a, for a criminal investigation and that's the bottom line is that there hasn't been one

Brian: Well, the criminal examination was erm, sabotaged by the British government as I say, going back to those records, those financial records that came back from England filled one side of paper and it just basically said that Kate and Gerry had no record of bank accounts or credit cards which is crazy because we know they rented a car er, using a credit card so ...

Paul: they covered up their tracks pretty much, I mean in other words there's no way for either you or I do know what they did, where they were at the time this took place.

Brian: Right, and if there was, you know... peoples spending habits is crucial in any criminal investigation but the Portuguese investigators were denied that knowledge.

Paul: So...you've got..here...you've got ..erm I don't know, I'm just going to ask you this. You've got 48 questions that Kate did not answer can you get into that a little bit'

Brian: Well, she basically ['] the fifth on every one of those questions er, if you ask me if I can just bring up the questions here...now..

Paul: No, that's okay, I don't think we need to get into ... you've got your book and this will be a good time, tell people how they can get hold of this book.

Brian: yeah, if they visit the website which is erm, fakedabduction.com they can order it directly online from, form the website, erm, they can order, if they order quantities for 4 to 9 books there's a discount on the handling fees but erm, at the moment it's sold, the book is sold into six different countries er the UK, the USA er, Portugal, Germany Spain and Belgium and er, you know it's provoking a lot of interest.

Paul: Well hopefully it will bring about er you know, I mean this is what we're dealing with here, internationally, you know, we've, we've already uncovered erm you know, on this radio program and through our site in numerous paedophile rings that are operating at highest levels of government and erm, you know one of the things that you bring up as well is that you talk about er, David Payne's paedophile allegations

Brian: Well there was...the British media has commented on the case as it's gone along but one, notably one piece of information in the British media has never talked about is erm, there was some er witness statements thirteen days after Madeleine disappeared in England, erm, two doctors who were friends of the McCanns went to Leicester police station to make a report about er an earlier vacation in 2005 in the Spanish island of Majorca erm, now on that vacation there was the two witnesses er, the Paynes and the McCanns and erm, there was a conversation between Gerry McCann and David Payne er that was er that was overheard by these two witnesses and er, it was highly inappropriate discussion which they deemed to be sexual and talking about Madeleine

Paul: This was after her death'

Brian: No, this was in 2005. The doctors were concerned er they had, they had concerns about this holiday that they'd be on in 2005 er and she disappeared in 07 so this was two years before she disappeared and so this inappropriate discussion erm, you know, they went to, naturally went to the police to erm, explain their experience back in 2005. Now that information....

Paul: They filed a police report'

Brian: They filed a police report. Now that information was deliberately withheld by Leicester police and not handed to Portuguese investigators for almost six months

Paul: Jeez

Brian: they didn't send it until October the 24th and er, by that time the chief inspector had been pulled off the case.

Paul: Jeez...so let me ask you a question. These two individuals okay, that we're talking about, what happened to them'

Brian: Er, do you mean the witnesses or'

Paul: yeah, the two witnesses

Brian: Er, they've never been heard of, I mean we know from the police files that they made that statement and erm, I don't think they've been interviewed by anybody. Er, my, my, my sort of guess is that the British media have been gagged on that aspect, a bit like the Hollie Greig case. I think that, you know, talking about the er, Payne/McCann allegations in Majorca is taboo and I think that's the aspect the McCanns have tried to get Goncalo Amaral's book injuncted ['] on that basis.

Paul: Okay...so bottom line, let me ...we're going to have to take another break here real quick and erm, what I'd like you to do is if you are around my website is, you'll see there's a nice little green band there for the surge ex pro... [snipped]

Okay...so, this is, this is the question alright. Were these individuals, this is what we've found in like....let me give you another example in Jon Banay case. They were actually putting Jon Banay in this beauty pageant and er, there's been a lot of er, evidence that seem to point, you know, that these childhood beauty pageants can also be used to er, erm, prostitute children, you know, for the use of, of paedophile elite and er, were they involved with anything like that with Madeleine'

Brian: Ermmm....I don't, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever, erm, you know, I've got to be honest there erm, in fact...in fact..

Paul: We've got a caller here....Go ahead you're on the air. Hello' Hello, you're on the air. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Brian: Yeah, erm, I was going to say and I stress this point, that, the actual evidence that we see and all the hearsay from the friends and neighbours of the McCanns is that they were, you know, typical loving parents of, you know, three young children so the bizarre thing is if they were so security conscious, so er, caring towards the children you know, why did they leave them every night' So there's a clear conflict anyway erm....

Paul: We're going to take a call here...I'm, I'm sorry...are you there' Are you there' Sorry, go ahead. Are you there'

Yeah, hi, I'm here.

Paul: My apologies, we're just er...people are hanging up before we get to them. But this is such an interesting topic I mean, no honestly, I want to hear you talk about it so ...if you'd like to call in the number's [number delted] and let Brian have the chance to finish his statement and we'll get you on the air...okay I'm sorry...

Brian: Yeah, erm, it's just a mystery all round really and er and it's just been covered up in a similar way to you know...you've had Anne Greig and Stuart Usher on your show recently and so you know the er...the way that the er British establishment can cover these things up. And no doubt this occurred with the Madeleine case. Now I think in the Hollie Greig case they were able to stop a wildfire by fanning the flames before they got too big erm, but in the Madeleine case because of its international erm, publicity and the nature of the disappearance they weren't, they weren't able to suppress the stories so what happened, instead of suppression erm, there was a sustained campaign of propaganda and so they brought in a guy who use to work for the British government called Clarence Mitchell who is a er, he worked for the Media Monitoring Unit in the government which is basically the governments propaganda department and he was brought in er, within days of the disappearance and erm, he had a clear hand in manipulating the British press to produce stories that were ostensibly were just that ' propaganda, just in favour of the McCanns

Paul: He's a spin doctor

Brian: He's a spin doctor, yeah.

Paul: Who pays for this guy'

Brian: Well, initially he was paid for by the tax payer because he was seconded to the McCanns from the Foreign Office so he was actually, initially employed by the British Foreign Office to go around as, as, you know, their PR man.

Paul: mmhmm...so what we're talking about here is the government, the British Government actually got involved in er, suppressing the story

Brian: Correct. Yes.

Paul: We've got other allegations out there right now of er, paedophilia in er, you know, in the highest levels of British government don't we'

Brian: It would appear so, yes. There's a lot of stories, I read a story about Mike James recently er, looked very controversial

Paul: Can you tell us a little bit about it'

Brian: What ' Mike James' story'

Paul: ummhmmm...you know, let's talk about some of the other things that are going on right now. A lot of my listeners are you know, throughout the world and we don't erm...we don't ...

Brian: Sure. Well, the Hollie one...well obviously the one that's the topic right now is the Hollie Greig story, I've devoted six pages to that in the book as well and erm, you know, that is just an atrocious, an appalling case of erm, you know, these lawyers and especially, what is it, the Lord Advocate of Scotland erm, you know, covering up a story which is erm in the public interest. What I'd like to know is why these people don't rebut these allegations and they always feel that they have to cover them up.

Paul: Well, it's interesting you say that because I just published an article today where the sheriff of Scotland came out and er got a gag order against Robert Green. Now they're calling Robert Green who was a journalist, they're calling him like an attorney advocate, now the guy doesn't practise law he just writes articles. So they're trying to turn this into you know...I don't know...I honestly...to me the more you cover something up the more people are gonna want...are going to ask questions. I mean, that's pretty much your experience isn't it Brian'

Brian: That's always the way, I mean I've experienced that here and in the USA as well. I mean, it's erm, you know, there's, there's...this goes on in every country of the world I'm afraid and it's seems that the more powerful the more rich these people are they can manipulate the lawyers to gag people and silence them. And erm, you know, that's the kind of an attitude that we thought that was prevalent say in Russia in the cold war days but this is happening in Britain which is supposed to be a free Western democracy....er...you know, we know, we know it's not. And we don't want that attitude, we need openness, we need to be able to talk about these things.

Paul: Well here's a theory, you know, I'll throw this at yer. I think that the reason why this case has gotten so much publicity is simply it is a distraction erm, it's been a distraction. Not only...it serves two purposes...one covers up what the ...for the er, you know...for the McCanns but I think the second purpose is that, you know, there's gotta be a channel for emotion and for energy and er, when the government gives us er a release like in this case, you know, we can all spend money and donate money to the McCann fund you know, and we can go out and hang up posters looking for her...well, that's, that's ..all that is, is just a way for them to siphon off the energy that really, really need to be devoted towards exposing these people. Any comments on that'

Brian: Well the fund is certainly a mystery because the McCanns are directors of the fund, they've also got er Gerry's brother John who is the chairman of it and then you've got erm, Kate's uncle Brian, he's also a director. So you've got four family members on the board of directors there, you've also got Ed Smethurst, he's a 30 year Free Mason er, who's also ....er...now the interesting thing is, the company, the law firm that set up the fund is probably Britain's, one of the er largest law firms representing Free Masons and Free Masons charities. Now they don't advertise them on their website. I found that through considerable research.

Paul: Interesting. So we're talking that the Free Masons are behind funding this er McCann fund'

Brian: Erm, well you know, the, the Bates Wells and Braithwaite law firm behind the Madeleine fund they're also the lawyers for the Grand Charity which is Britain's largest Free Masons charity so ...yeah, there's a clear business connection between a lot of Free Masonry involvement and the McCann ...er...the Madeleine fund.

Paul: Okay, so we're going to take one more break here and er ...[snipped]

We've got a few minutes left here and er...Brian, I am definitely going to have you back on this show and er...go ahead...you've got three minutes ...what else would you like to tell us'

Brian: Yeah, I'd like to just say a few words for the inspector Goncalo Amaral who erm, was as I say, he was pulled off the case and even Gordon Brown knew about that before he was fired. Erm, the, erm, inspector wrote a book called 'The Truth in the Lie' which was a best seller in Portugal where he, you know, he told us about some of the hidden details of the case. And in September of last year the McCanns filed an injunction in Portugal to have this inspector's book er banned from sale, and after the hearing in January and February of this year the judge actually er held a decision and the book is banned. His book, his opinions about his involvement in the police case and the McCanns have said they wanted the book banned because he is saying that she er Madeleine is dead and therefore people won't look for her if they believed she's dead. Erm, one of my websites I have an opinion poll of a 5,000 documented people where two out of three people believe she's dead anyway. So you know, it's er

Paul: they're going to do everything they can to suppress the truth, that's what this sounds like to me.

Brian: yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.

Paul: Everything. And the thing is it's not only them, it's the er British government

Brian: That's right

Paul: Once again, this is a huge outrage, there's things we can do and erm, we'll talk about that, first thing we need to do we need to get your article out er, get the article published and probably a series of articles and also promote your book so people can read this and er

Brian: Thank you

Paul:...there's other things we can do...one of the things I..we can also do is create a petition for people to sign, demanding that... you know... these things er come out and demanding a criminal investigation into these things. I understand that erm, you know... I'm not... I personally couldn't care less about what people can do or what they want to do as far as threats and things like that ..erm, but I'm sure you've had some of that. Give me some idea of what kind of harassment you've had to put up with just to get this information out there.

Brian: Well I've been covering the case for three years now with my websites and I've had a lot of, I mean, I can vouch for a lot of say hate mail. You know, there's a lot of people who they don't want you to investigate this stuff you know, and you've got to query why would random people not be wanting you to investigate. You know, why was erm, Martin Smith the guy who saw a man that in, he later pronounced he's 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine in another part of the town late...on that night and er, you know, he hadn't come forward and er, somebody connected with the Madeleine fund contacted Martin Smith months after this appearance. You know, why are these witnesses being tampered with'

Paul: Yeah, so what we end up with is ...when he saw, saw the dad carrying Madeleine was she awake' Was she alive' I mean did he say anything about that at all'

Brian: Well in his testimony he initially told police he'd saw a man carrying a girl about ten to ten at night which was ten minutes before Kate supposedly alerted to say she'd disappeared and erm, you know, months later when Martin Smith saw Gerry disembarking off the plane carrying his son, that jogged his memory and he said 'that was the man that I saw!' He claims he's 80% sure in the police files

Paul: Wow. Well we, we sure appreciate you being on the air, we're gonna start er, helping you with the publicity on this and er...give us one more ..give us your web address one more time so people can buy this book.

Brian: Okay, yes, it's fakedabduction.com and er, the book is on sale.

Paul: Awesome. Well it was great having yer and er obviously I'm going to commit you to appearing again on the show so we can talk about this again in a little more detail.

Brian: yeah, I'd like to do that, thank you.

Paul: And er ... no problem...and er again this is er Steve Marsden who is the author of the book and the title of the book is...go ahead, it's all you...

Brian: Faked Abduction

Paul: Faked Abduction and the website you can go to get this book is ...

Brian: fakedabduction.com

Paul: fakedabduction.com, I'll have that in the articles. So thank you very much for coming on the show and er I'm going wrap things up over the next ten minutes. Okay.

Brian: Okay. Appreciate it

Paul: thanks, bye.

Paul: So here we have, obviously there's quite a bit of evidence here that is not being presented or has not come out in the public and you know, you've gotta...it's just a huge conspiracy and I wonder or not anything, any foul play took place here. There surely is enough evidence here for at least an inquest in Great Britain. Er we have the potential for fraud; we have the potential for erm, all kinds of bad things that er could be here. I mean, we're talking about er five million dollars erm, that's been raised for er...or five million pounds, I'm not sure which one, but er the point is, that's a ton of money er, I think some people deserve some accountability I mean, what have they done with this money' Where's it gone' Where did they spend it on' The other question is, why don' we have statements from the other children or other witnesses, why haven't they been interviewed' Why has er testimony been suppressed' The example is the gentleman who saw er reportedly saw erm the father of er Maddie carrying her around at the time she supposedly disappeared.

Er, we've got two cadaver dog...er one cadaver sniffing dog that alerted in the home, we've got one blood sniffing dog that alerted in the home, we've got er reportedly they detected blood spray pattern that would be consistent with some type of damage to the larynx or to the throat. Er, there's just tons of evidence there. And you know, Great Britain is ....[sighs] this is just another connection in the, you know, the big picture which is..I've been trying to convey on this show which is that we are...we've been literally taken by these satanic paedophiles and these people are Satanists. No one that worships God would do these kinds of things, would be involved in these kind of things er that we're seeing, what my colleague Greig, like what we're seeing with some of these other people that are out there and...we need your help. I mean, there's two petitions right no on my website that I need you to sign er, one has to deal with Hollie Greig and erm Mr Green, the journalist who just got gagged by the er sheriff who was one of the alleged abusers and er, the second one has to deal with editor Joseph Cannon in Utah here in the United States. Er Mr Cannon sat on a paedophile story er, a leading republican that just resigned from the Utah state house er, came out and admitted that he was naked in the hot tub with a 15 year old girl, who was 15 at the time. We don't know if she was 15 and I don't know if in fact their relationship started before that. We don't know. All we know is what they report and that was she was 15 at the time and that this allegedly happened. This poor girl is being [demonised '] by the Utah media right now, they're just beating her up because she came forward. And er, literally she has been successful in ending this er paedophile's career. We're talking an individual that is in one of the highest elected offices within the state of Utah.

Now as a Mormon, I can't tell yer how deeply offended I am that er this is being treated the way it is. You don't go after victims. You don't persecute people because they tell you er that someone in authority is doing things that are just egregious and I think this is going to turn into bad things, other bad things, other bad things are gonna come out because, you see, once one person has the courage to come out and tell a story then others will follow.

And already there's reports of another girl in Utah that was also er involved with this guy. And normally a paedophile will have anywhere between 30 to 40 victims for every one they get caught with.

Now getting back to Maddie, we have two witnesses that heard her dad, her father, with another gentleman talking about er sexual relationships with this little girl. And er, this is just, this is just unbelievable that this is being suppressed. And this book is probably one of the things, one of the greatest things this gentleman's done a ton of research and I really invite you to go through the articles that I'm going to be publishing over the next couple of days about this and I want you to take a look at this book, you know, acquiring it er, we need to support people like this. And er, we also need to support any efforts to bring justice to our children.

And with that said, erm, I wish you the best my friends. Remember God's in charge, not these people. These people are evil and evil has its bounds and limited in what it can do. God doesn't have any limitations. And just remember that and just keep everybody in your prayers, keep us in your prayers, keep Brian in your prayers and er, I promise you I'll do the same and with God's help we will not only expose these individuals but we'll drive them back into the darkness where they belong.


TTW4 INTERVIEWS BRIAN JOHNSON

MCCANN UNRAVEL 20 MARCH 2010

Today I was given the opportunity to ask Steve some direct questions concerning his new book. With reconciliation and explanation very much in mind he gave me this interview which I now publish.

1. What made you write the book'

The forums debating Madeleine's disappearance had dwindled in terms of numbers of those seriously interested in Madeleine's demise. More blogs were springing up to debate the debaters rather than the actual case. I had always been interested in the forensic aspects of the case and tussling with those more interested in forum disruption did not interest me at all. After I called it a day in the forums I thought I'd concentrate on writing a book. Around that time (September/October), Amaral's book was in limbo and I had exhausted negotiations on publishing that book in English out here in the USA. The publisher appeared to dawdle too long and we all know what happened after that. The prospect of publishing an English "Truth of the Lie" in the USA was all but gone. Faked Abduction was an idea that grew out of the prospect of there being no English book that would tell the story from an unbiased and propaganda free platform. With no "Truth of the Lie" in English it seemed the logical thing to do.



2. Why the long delay' Wasn't it supposed to come out in January'



Initially, my research said that most paperbacks of this type were typically in the region of 300-320 pages. Amaral's book was quite a "thin" 200 or so pages. I wanted more information than his book because a lot of time had passed since his book came out in the summer of 2008. We knew more information than Goncalo was able to put in his book and so I knew 300 or so pages would be more appropriate. Then with Christmas looming, it is always a good idea to try to release a product in advance of that season. However, the pressure of writing it to reach a seasonal deadline was crazy. I wanted a decent product, not a rush job. January seemed a better prospect but then a few other technical and logistical problems came up. The book-cover is a deep blue and was something I designed as an RGB image. Converting to CMYK for a printer meant those nice blue tones were lost. Anyone in the print industry would know that blue is a nightmare to deal with but all my graphic work is online so I didn't know this was a problem until late in the day. I eventually sorted this out and in the midst of it all, we had the Amaral trial in Lisbon. It seemed silly to not mention the outcome of this in the book so this was another reason to hold off for a few weeks. Also, like Amaral, I am subject to an illegal injunction in a lawsuit here in the USA. That was another distraction.



3. Why are some saying you plagiarised Amaral's book'



I have no idea. It would seem that the instigator of this was one Mr. Tony Bennett. In his February Madeleine Foundation newsletter, he recommended that nobody should buy Faked Abduction because he "learned" that it was a double-plagiarism of a work by a blogger called Anna (whatever a double-plagiarism means!). As nobody knew what my book was about, it is remarkable that Mr. Bennett, Antonella Lazzeri (writing in the Sun) and Clarence Mitchell all seemed to know its content before it was released. Mitchell we already know about but why the Madeleine Foundation circulated erroneous information and a recommendation not to buy it is something people should be asking them. This was a scurrilous and unfounded attack and probably stems from an aborted business deal I had proposed to Mr. Bennett in 2009 when I explored printing his 60-Reasons book in the USA where he wanted a 20% royalty paid directly to him instead of the Madeleine Foundation.



4. How did you choose what to put in and what to leave out'



This was tricky. In the end, my 320 pages were exceeded by over 300 more pages. I ended up removing 4 chapters consisting of 90 pages only days before printing and it ended up at 526 pages. I had to include the two well known controversies - Majorca 2005 and Mrs. Fenn's testimony - but also the foundation story of the abduction itself; the flawed jemmied shutter story. The dog evidence was also necessary but there are no references to "noise" - the sightings and other distractions that led the police on wild goose chases. The five photographs was always a big talking point and in terms of the Last Photo, I used some new software to analyse the image and the controversial findings are in the book. There are numerous references to many facts in the case but they are introduced as and when they needed to be cross referenced by other topics. There is a lot of indexing within the book and this took considerable time in the preparation of the final draft. Writing is one thing but styling and completing a book is a time consuming job.



5. What are you hoping for the book'



A lot of bloggers and serious forum posters have invested a lot of time and effort in this case because we have all showed concerns for justice in the past three years. I recognise them in the book and take my hat off to all the hours they have contributed to the cause. Without such great amateur support we would not be where we are today and the case would have melted away. We have all felt at times that the answer was just round the corner but it never has been. The massive smoke screen of propaganda has literally brainwashed a nation and had this case been in pre-Internet times, it would have faded away within weeks and been effectively covered up with hardly anyone batting an eyelid. The book is my own little contribution to justice and truth for Madeleine. I respect all the others out there doing their own bit in their own way and long may it continue. The repository websites...Pamalam's, McCannFiles, Joana Morais' blog etc. - they all get a mention and if the book can drive more traffic to them and interest a whole new set of people in reading about the case then great. Personally I think the Madeleine coverage on the Internet is analogous to Operation Desert Storm and its aerial bombardment campaign. As we saw in that military battle, Desert Storm eventually had to be conquered by troops on the ground to win the war and in this respect I think a book can do a job that the Internet cannot. Many people still want to read about this case in book form because they don't have time to sit in front of a computer for hours. As the first English book to properly question the abduction, I hope it revitalises interest in this massive government cover up.



6. Will there be any translations'



There are some people assisting or that have offered assistance with translations to Portuguese, German, Dutch and French. It would be nice to have those books printed locally in Europe to lower postage costs but they may have to be printed here in their respective languages. It depends on the amount of interest. I know Amaral's book sold well in Portugal and France but it didn't do much in Germany. It is always difficult to know how many books to print but there is scope to do all those four languages just mentioned.



7. Do you think the case will ever be solved'



I think the Madeleine case has the same chance of being solved as Dr. Kelly's murder and the real perpetrators of Omagh being brought to justice. In other words, very little chance. The corrupt nature of the British Establishment cover up is not something that is going to alter overnight because it is endemic. One has only to look at the Hollie Greig case to see how insidious these elite people are who cover their criminal tracks. I think the best thing we can hope for is to alert the general populace to the reality of the situation and try and undo a lot of the brainwashing - done so effectively by state owned or state manipulated press and media. As long as Joe Public believes the Team McCann propaganda it will be difficult to make a breakthrough. It really is a concern that Totalitarian Britain is now well on the way to being a Marxist regime and I'm sure we'll see a few more auto-erotic asphyxiations (a trademark MI5/MI6 assassination technique). It is quite alarming that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both been accused by many of being paedophiles and yet neither have taken action to sue the accusers. One thing is certain: It is way past the time that that those Scottish paedophile allegations were dealt with properly once and for all. Blair, Brown Lord Robertson, Elish Angiolini, Sheriff Buchanan et al need to front up to some serious allegations.


The Book Contents
Here is the chapter listing:

British Establishment Cover-ups
Maddie: A Name the Media Invented
The Police Conclusions
How the Story Unfolded
Experts in Propaganda
The Locations and People
A Neighbor Hears Crying
An Obsession with Lawyers
The Five Photographs
Payne & McCann Allegations
Dogs Don't Lie
The Weekend of June 9 ' 10
McCanns on the Oprah Show
Letter to the Madeleine Fund
Gerry's Blogs and Kate's Diary
The Official Fund
The Arguido Interviews
Dealing with a Corpse
Flaws in Goncalo Amaral's thesis
Interesting Details from the Files
The Author's Conclusions

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Timeline 2007-2010
Appendix B: Timeline May 3, 2007
Appendix C: Tavares Almeida's Report
Appendix D: Mark Harrison's Report
Appendix E: Martin Grime's Profile
Appendix F: Documentaries & Interviews
Appendix G: Kate Healy's Bible
Appendix H: Justice Hogg's Judgment

A few book Highlights:

Copious footnotes and cross references to verify sources
Correspondence from Peter McCann of Castle Craig about his relationship with Gerry McCann
The statements deliberately held back from the Portuguese police by Leicester Constabulary
The blatant discrepancies in the Tapas Nine witness statements
Jane Tanner's conflicting statements
Did Kate falsify legal documents'
Where did Goncalo Amaral go wrong'
Correspondence from the Masonic law firm entrusted with setting up Madeleine's Fund
Gordon Brown's wife and the fellow Bristol University graduate behind the Madeleine Fund
Information about other appalling British Establishment cover ups including Dunblane, Omagh and the recent shock Hollie Greig case

But remember'

According to Clarence Mitchell in the Sun newspaper on January 27, 2010, all the allegations in Faked Abduction are entirely untrue.

Find out for yourself

[Acknowledgement: .pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Gerry and Kate McCann 10th Anniversary Interview with Fiona Bruce - 3rd May 2017

Transcript:

Kate McCann - KM
Gerry McCann - GM
Interviewer - Fiona Bruce - FB

FB: Kate and Gerry, first of all, thank you very much for doing this interview. This is a very difficult time of year and it's the 10-year anniversary, obviously an anniversary you hoped you would never see.

KM: Yeah I mean I never thought we'd still be in this situation, so far along the line. It's a huge amount of time. In some ways it feels like it was only a few weeks ago, in other times it has felt really long. But it's a hard marker of time.

FB: And you've referred to it on your website as "stolen time"?

KM: Oh yeah, I mean it's time we should have had with Madeleine. We should have been a family of five for all that time. And yeah, it just feels stolen.

FB: And you can never have imagined, 10 years ago, that you would still be in this situation?

GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this. It's devastating and we really threw ourselves into trying to do everything we could to help find her. It looks like that hasn't worked yet. But you know we are still looking forward, I think that's the most important thing - we still hope.

FB: And how are you doing as a family? The pair of you?

GM: I think we're doing a new normality, really, particularly over probably the last - and it seems like a long time saying it - but over the last five years. Since the Metropolitan Police actually started their investigation, it has taken a huge pressure off us, individually and as a family.

FB: Because before that you were trying to fight the case yourselves, trying to encourage the police to look for Madeleine, get the Portuguese police involved?

GM: Yeah I think the key thing was - and I suppose the injustice of it - was that after the initial Portuguese investigation closed, essentially, no-one, no-one else was actually doing anything pro-actively to try and find Madeleine. And I think every parent could understand that what you want and what we have aspired to is to have all the reasonable lines of enquiry followed to a logical conclusion as far as you can do that, and that was incredibly frustrating.

FB: You talked at the time about what a blow that was?

GM: It was terrible, it was horrible, and you know as much as we tried and (were) fortunate to have had so many donations into Madeleine's fund and to use that money to try and investigate, your hands are tied, you don't have the powers that law enforcement have.

FB: So how much of a difference has it made. So for the last five years, the police have actively been investigating?

KM: Huge

GM: Absolutely huge, I mean I can't emphasise enough just what a massive burden that has lifted from us, and those around us, and also knowing that the lines of investigation have been prosecuted. I know the Assistant Commissioner, Mr (Mark) Rowley, spoke during the week, but you know a lot of those lines have been taken to a conclusion and that's almost as important as finding who's actually responsible but knowing that those lines have been shut down.

FB: And the police have talked about one significant lead they are still pursuing, can you tell me anything about that?

GM: The investigation is in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly have on-going inquires and from our perspective that's the important thing.

KM: They've managed to pull so much together and sift through so much information, so now we do seem to be on just several lines of enquiry rather than tens/hundreds.

FB: And there are four officers working on it full-time. You know there have been criticisms that the police shouldn't be spending so much money, still, so many years on, on this case, what would you say to that?

GM: I think some of that criticism is really quite unfair actually, because I know it's a single missing child, but there are millions of British tourists that go to the Algarve, year-on-year, and essentially you've got a British subject who was the subject of a crime and there were other crimes that came to light following Madeleine's abduction, that involved British tourists so I think prosecuting it to a reasonable end is what you would expect.

FB: But of course it doesn't happen, sadly there are so many children that go missing and the resources are not deployed on their cases?

GM: Others within law enforcement have made it very clear, this type of stranger abduction is exceptionally rare actually and we need to put it into perspective and it's partly why Madeleine's case is attracting so much attention, thrown in with many other ingredients, but this type of abduction is exceptionally rare.

FB: One of the police officers in Portugal has been a thorn in your side for many years, he was thrown off the investigation but then he wrote a book, presented a documentary, presenting of you of what happened to Madeleine which implicates you, and you fought it through the courts. At the moment you've lost and he's won, is this the end for you now, are you going to continue to fight him?

GM: I think the short answer is we have to because the last judgment I think is terrible. So we will be appealing. We haven't launched that yet, but it will be going to the European courts. I think it's also important to say that when we lodged the action was eight years ago and the circumstances were very different where we felt there was real damage being done to the search for Madeleine at that time, particularly in Portugal.

FB: Because he was effectively suggesting that you were involved?

GM: I think, you know, what people really need to realise though is, you know, as Assistant Commissioner Rowley has said again this week, and the Portuguese have said in the final report - have said there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and the prosecutor has said there's no evidence that we were involved in any crime and really that's - saying anything opposite isn't justice, it's not justice for Madeleine.

KM: I mean I find it all incomprehensible to be honest, it has been very upsetting, and it has caused a lot of frustration and anger which is a real negative emotion, and I think we just need to channel that and I just have to hope that in the long run that justice will prevail, and all will be well.

GM: And I think it's also important for us personally, but for the rest of the family as well.

FB: For your children?

GM: Yeah and our wider family, both parents, brothers and sisters etc, so - you know - we've got to challenge it, and we will do.

FB: The other thing that struck me when I was looking through various internet search engines before I did this interview was quite how much cruel, distressing, horribly tasteless commentary there is out there about you, about Madeleine. People giving their opinions about what they think happened, even though they don't know you. They were nowhere near, they can't possibly know. It's so hurtful for you, that that is out there - and for your children - how do you deal with that?

KM: I think the whole social media has got huge pros, but huge cons. On the downside, and all that's been written... I guess we protect ourselves really. We don't go there to be honest. We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them. I guess our worry is for our children.

FB: Of course, because they are now 12, they are at an age where social media becomes increasingly important?

GM: I don't want to dwell on the negative aspects too long, but I think in this era of "fake news" it is extremely topical and I think people just need to think twice before what they write and the effects it has. Certainly I know ourselves with our own experience, both in the mainstream media and also on the internet, we just say I am not going to believe that until I see evidence of it. I'm sure it is a very small minority of people who spend their time doing it, but it has totally inhibited what we do. Personally, we don't use social media, although we have used it in Madeleine's campaign. But for our twins who are growing up in an era where mobile technology is used all the time, we don't want them not to be able to use it in the same way that their peers do.

FB: How do you protect them?

GM: We had some excellent advice early on. We have been as open with them as we can. We have told them about things and that people are writing things that are simply just untrue and they need to be aware of that. They're not really at the age where they are on the internet and other sites, but they're coming to that stage. They're in closed groups with their friends etc and that's important.

KM: I think we've tried to educate them a little bit as well because obviously it's not just us that has fallen victim to the downside of social media.

FB: Does it shock you? Because it has shocked me, certainly a little, the things that people say.

KM: I think it has been shocking... that aspect of human nature that I hadn't really encountered before. Because I think it's so far from how you would behave or people that you know would behave. It's been striking and quite hard really to get your head round. Because why would somebody write that? Why would somebody add to someone's upset - why would someone in a position of ignorance do something like that?

GM: I think we've seen the worst and the best of human nature. And our personal experience, rather than on the internet, has been overwhelmingly seeing the better side of human nature. And I think we need to remember that actually. We've had fantastic support over the last 10 years. And because there's a lot of media attention now around the 10th anniversary, we are starting to see that again as well.

KM: I think that's true. I think because things like social media, or (Goncalo) Amaral or whatever, because it's so awful and upsetting, it does kind of sometimes stand out more, it becomes more of a talking point. Whereas actually the main thing that we have experienced is the goodness of people and the support that we have had over 10 years, which hasn't wavered in all that time.

FB: How different is your life now? When you have a child, you consciously or subconsciously imagine your future and the future of that child. How different is your life now to that what you must have imagined all those years ago?

GM: I think before Madeleine was taken, we felt we had managed to achieve our little perfect nuclear family of five. And we had that for a short period and I suppose, almost the same way as if your child becomes ill or seriously ill, or has died, like many other families have suffered... then your vision is altered and you have to adapt. And I think that's a theme that speaking to other people who have gone through terribly traumatic processes with children and other loved ones, that is something that gradually happens, and you adapt and you have a new normality. And unfortunately for us a new normality is a family-of-four. But we have adapted and that's important. The last five years in particular has allowed us to really properly devote time to looking after the twins and ourselves and of course carrying on with our work. At some point you've got to realise that time is not frozen and I think both of us realise that we owed it to the twins to make sure that their life is as fulfilling as they deserve, and we have certainly tried our best to achieve that.

FB: On the face of it, you appear to have stayed so strong as a family unit. I just wonder how you have managed to do that? It's so easy to blame each other when a cataclysm befalls a family. That's such as easy trap to fall into.

KM: I don't think there has ever been any blame, fortunately. What people do say is that you don't realise how strong you are until you have no option. And I think that's very true. Obviously massive events like this cause a lot of reaction, a lot of trauma and upset. But ultimately you have to keep going - and especially when you have got other children involved. Some of that is subconscious I think - your mind and body just take over to a certain extent. But if you can't change something immediately, you have to go with it and do the best that you can. And I think that's what we have tried to do. As Gerry said, one of our goals - obviously ultimately finding Madeleine - was to ensure that Sean and Amelie have a very normal, happy and fulfilling life and we'll do everything that we can to ensure that.

FB: Life for you has changed in different ways Kate. You were a GP. You stopped working, you haven't gone back to full-time work. I assume the idea of someone else looking after your children seemed unthinkable after what happened - you just needed to be with the children and be there?

KM: Certainly initially, yes absolutely. The kids weren't even in school, I wanted to be there, I didn't want to let them out of my sight - there was obviously a lot going on, a lot of campaign work, a lot of emotion. I am actually back at work now. I am doing something different to what I was doing.

FB: What are you doing now?

KM: I am back into medicine but a different area to my general practice. So that obviously takes up some time - and again that was a big step to re-establish as normal a life as possible. Life's busy. I think in some ways, whether it's our personality or whether it's a coping strategy but sometimes it's almost a little bit too frenetic, but it keeps us going. I think we don't dwell too much on things unnecessarily so I think that's probably a self-protective thing there as well. We do have a very full life and as normal as we can make it.

FB: And how much do you make Madeleine a part of it, do you talk about Madeleine, is she a name that crops up every day? How do you manage that?

GM: I mean she's always still part of our life, there's photographs all round the house, this time of year, then we can't even have conversations that doesn't involve it, kids know we're doing the interview today, the anniversary is coming up, so she is still part of it.

KM: I think every kind of event that we do, whether it be a birthday or a family occasion or even an achievement or something that is kind of when you really feel her absence. It's slightly different to how it was in the early days, when everything we were doing was to find Madeleine, whereas now we are having to get on and live a life as well, but its not like any day she's not there, if you know what I mean.

FB: And last time we talked, you told me how you were still buying birthday presents and Christmas presents for Madeleine. With 10 years now, are you still doing that?

KM: I still do that yeah. You couldn't not.

FB: So you go around the shops and you think, Madeleine would have been this age now, and what would she want?

KM: I do, I do, that's it. I obviously have to think about what age she is and something that, whenever we find her, will still be appropriate so there's a lot of thought goes into it. But I couldn't not, you know, she's still our daughter, she'll always be our daughter.

GM: Because Kate does all the present-buying.

KM: I do all the present buying, and yep, they'll be another one coming up - you know - in the next few weeks.

FB: And Madeleine would be how old?

GM: Just coming up to 14.

FB: And this anniversary, how will you get through that day?

KM: I think like I put in my message on the website, every day is another day, without Madeleine. I think it's just that number, that 10-year mark, which makes it more significant I think - that is a reminder of how much time has gone by and obviously 10's a big number. I think we'll get by as we have any other year really, we'll be surrounded by family and friends, you know, obviously we'll be there remembering Madeleine, as we always have.

GM: I think the day and the poignancy of it, that we don't tend to go back to the time, because it's so draining but inevitably on anniversaries and her birthday they are by far the hardest days, by far.

KM: I think it is important though because despite how difficult these days are, just keeping in mind actually how much progress we have made and you know nothing's ever going to be quick enough from our point of view but the last five years, we've come a long way and there is progress and there are some very credible lines of enquiry that the police are working on and whilst there's no evidence to give us any negative news, you know, that hope is still there.

FB: It really is there in your hearts, the hope that one day you'll be reunited with your daughter?

GM: No parent is going to give up on their child, unless they know for certain their child is dead, and we just don't have any evidence.

KM: My hope for Madeleine being out there is no less than it was almost 10 years ago, I mean apart from those first 48 hours nothing has actually changed since then, I mean - I think the difficult thing has always been how will we find her because you're relying on the police doing everything they can, and you're relying on somebody with information coming forward.

GM: I think that that is so important, that everyone thinks what could have happened, but some of the scenarios with other people that have been abducted and kept, is just so unbelievable that you think 'how could that have happened' and that is probably what is going to happen with Madeleine's case as well, that people will go 'that's incredible, how did that happen - we just don't know'.

KM: I think Assistant Commissioner Rowley underlined that last week: that you can't apply normal logic to someone who commits a crime like this - because you try and think, 'well, surely if they'd have done that, they'd done that and therefore' - but you can't.

FB: But you must also look at cases, in the case of Ben Needham who went missing in Greece, decades past and even now it's not entirely resolved, it's thought that he died very soon after he left the house but it's not known.

GM: That's interesting though you know, the people who've got the most experience are the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States, and one of the earliest things that stuck with me ever since then is the younger that at the time a child is taken, the more likely they've been taken to be kept, and that could equally apply to Ben Needham who was younger than Madeleine so that's something we have to factor in actually.

FB: Which in one way could be a relief, but in another way is an unconscionable thought for you?

GM: It is, and it's 10 years, and how much has she changed and where would she be now, so, but I think the key thing is is to find Madeleine, she's still alive, recognise who she is, or we need to find the person or the people responsible for taking her.

FB: You must have imagined over the years - if you saw her, do you know what you'd say to her, how your lives would change?

KM: Yeah I think I try not to go there too often to be honest it's one of those real bitter-sweet kind of thoughts, yeah, I mean, I can't imagine, 10 years is a long time, but ultimately we're mum and dad, she's our daughter, she's got a brother and sister, grandparents and lots of family and friends you know.

So it would be absolutely fine, it would be - well - it would be beyond words really. We'll cope with anything.

FB: Now, I know doing this interview was something you thought long and hard about, not something you particularly want to do, certainly not something you were looking forward to, what do you hope by doing an interview like this, what do you hope people will hear, what's the message you want to get out?

GM: I think, that there is still hope really, there isn't a new appeal, most of the media that we've done in the previous years is usually around that - so this is unusual. So, we are marking the anniversary. I think it's been good for the general public to hear police say there's no evidence that she's dead, and that there is still an active investigation, and there is still hope. So certainly from my point of view, somebody knows what's happened.

KM: I think you know we've had so many supporters who, I say, are still with us, people that we don't know who are still there and I guess I just want them to be reassured that there is progress being made. It might not be as quick as we want, but there's real progress being made and I think we need to take heart from that and we just have to go with the process and follow it through, whatever it takes for as long as it takes. But that there is still hope that we can find Madeleine.

FB: And if you do find Madeleine you'll be able to show her everything you did to try and find her. You never gave up?

KM: Absolutely. And how many people have been there willing her home.

FB: Is there anything else you would like to say?

KM: I think that is one of the positives, we were talking about the amount of money, and I used to feel really embarrassed when people used to say about the amount of money, but then you realise that other big cases, like Stephen Lawrence, these cases cost a huge amount of money. I guess the one thing, because you always do feel guilty as the parent of a missing child - that other families haven't had the publicity and the money, and I know there's reasons why that happened, but I guess the positive is that it has certainly brought the whole issue of missing children to the forefront and I think people have benefited in many different ways, really. Because of that. I know the charity Missing People has had a lot of attention, haven't they and all the families have come together I think it's just highlighted it, made people more aware, and those families have had more support from each other.

FB: A small silver lining. A tiny little sliver of one. Let's end it there.

[Interview transcript the Daily Mirror]

Gerry McCann at the IBA Madrid Annual Conference October 06, 2009

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gerry McCann speaks at the IBA annual Conference


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gerry McCann speaks at IBA Annual Conference, Madrid
Gerry McCann, father of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, was the keynote speaker at an IBA Annual Conference session of the Media Law Committee. He spoke about his relationship with the media and media law over the past two years.

Other high profile speakers at the session included Herman Croux, Roger Mann, Julian Porter, Kelli Sager, Paul Tweed and Adam Tudor.
The session was chaired by Mark Stephens and Nigel Tait.

Watch video
Read Gerry McCann’s speech

Nigel Tait, session co-chair: I’m delighted to introduce our panel of speakers to you, all of whom are acknowledged experts in the field of media law. First we have Herman Croux from Brussels in Belgium. Herman has acted as an adviser to the Belgian Government on constitutional and judicial reform and was an assistant professor at the University of Lervin. Herman is a regular speaker at international conferences and is chair of the Copyright and Entertainment Law Committee of the IBA. He has been involved in many notable cases including the constitutionality of The Protection of Journalists’ Sources Act before the Constitutional Court.

Then we have Doctor Roger Mann from Hamburg in Germany. Roger is a specialist in defamation litigation and acts for national magazine and newspaper publishers as well as for politicians and chief executive officers. Recently he’s acted for the Quant family and Susan Clatton, who are the main shareholders in BMW, over reports about an attempted blackmail.

From Toronto in Canada, I’m pleased to introduce Julian Porter QC who was called to the bar in 1964 and has practised litigation ever since. Julian has defended many of Canada’s leading writers, publishers and magazines and has acted for a large number of plaintiffs, suing newspapers and television stations. Julian has also produced two excellent conference papers which can be found on the IBA in Madrid conference website; one on the libel case brought by Richard Desmond against Tom Bauer and one dwelling on the deadpan humour of a British judge in the privacy case of Max Mosley against the News of the World.

Our next panellist is Kelli Sager from Los Angeles in California. Kelli is one of the only two lawyers in the United States to have been given the prestigious star ranking by the Chambers USA guide in the field of first amendment law and she represents the whole spectrum of media defendants including claims for libel, breach of privacy, reporters’ shield laws and internet law.

Next from Belfast and Dublin we have Paul Tweed. Paul has practised as a media lawyer for over 30 years and is well known in the United Kingdom for acting for high profile Hollywood personalities such as Britney Spears and Harrison Ford, who on one view instructed Paul to clear their names of false allegations, well, but on another view represent libel tourists who exploit claimant friendly UK libel laws. But one sure way of telling that Paul is an accomplished lawyer is the fact that he also represents the selfsame journalists and newspapers that he has sued on behalf of claimants, but not at the same time!

Also joining us today is Adam Tudor who successfully represented our key note speaker today, Gerry McCann, against the British press, and who can tell and talk about legal aspects of the case. My co-chairman today is one of the most well known lawyers in the United Kingdom. When I suggested to The Times newspaper that they write an article on what has happened to all the great characters in the British legal profession, we struggle to think of anyone other than Mark Stephens who could lay claim to such a title. Mark is a highly experienced lawyer, having won the case of Jameel and the Wall Street Journal, Europe, in the House of Lords for the defendant; a case on responsible journalism which most, if not all of us who practise in this area in the law, thought was a sure-fire winner for the claimant, but Mark nevertheless won for the defendant.

Our keynote speaker today is Mr Gerry McCann whose daughter, Madeleine, so tragically disappeared from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. Four months later, Madeleine’s parents were named as arguidos or persons of interest by the Portuguese police, sending the British media, in particular, into a frenzy of wild speculation and such speculation continued even beyond 21 July, 2008 when the Portuguese police lifted the McCann’s arguidos status and confirmed that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

We so often hear, and rightly so, about the importance of a free press and our friends in the United States jealously guard the First Amendment protection given to the press and to their citizens, but seldom do we hear from those caught in the spotlight of publicity and I’m extremely grateful to Mr McCann for agreeing to be our keynote speaker today. Mr McCann will stay for questions but now I would like him to tell you his story. Thank you very much.



Gerry McCann: Thank you, Nigel, and I’m very glad to see that the title says I’m the keynote speaker because this certainly isn’t a lecture. I don’t have any specific knowledge of the law in the United Kingdom and any other jurisdiction although I’ve had more than a lifetime’s worth of dealing with lawyers over the last two and a half years. So I’m very much speaking regarding our own personal experience of the trauma that we’ve been caught up in.

I think Nigel’s already pointed out some of the main facts. We were on holiday on the 3 May 2007 when Madeleine was abducted from the apartment we were sleeping in. The world media really had descended on Praia de Luz within 24 hours and generally during those first two to three, four months or so, it was incredibly supportive and I’ll touch on that in some detail. Towards the end of August, in particular around the time when we were declared arguidos, then we had some of the most vile media reporting probably, certainly in the history of British journalism. And in 2008 we had several libel claims for defamation, and invasion of privacy. Later that year, as Nigel says, the file was closed and the Portuguese judiciary concluded that there is no evidence to support any of the allegations against us and we have continued and ongoing action within Portugal, which I’m not going to speak of very much because it’s still in the judicial process.

This is a brief outline of the talk, and I’ll probably speak for about 20 minutes. I want to first of all talk about decisions and whether to interact with the media or not. It’s not compulsory. I’ll talk about a strategy which we tried to employ. We’ll show some of the supportive press coverage and I will show you some of the front page headlines which caused us to take action and the results of that legal redress. And I’ll conclude with just a few minutes really about some thoughts and our experiences and recommendations or suggestions which is up to the legal profession and the judiciary whether they act on of course.

Interacting with the media

The first thing to say is that you know, it’s not compulsory; I think most people feel that when they’re caught up in a trauma, that they should interact with the media. Any parent in this audience will understand the complete devastation that we felt when we discovered Madeleine was gone, and particularly within the first few hours when the search around the vicinity of Praia de Luz found no trace of her, and we felt completely devastated. And in the early hours of the morning we phoned family and close friends to tell them of what happened. And I think the feeling of helplessness that Kate and I had was magnified by the distance of our loved ones and what they felt, that they couldn’t do anything for us. And actually several people independently contacted the media to tell them what had happened and in fact a very close friend was already distributing photographs of Madeleine to all the major news outlets in the early hours of the morning, which we didn’t know.

One thing we were discussing last night over dinner; it was interesting that the only news organisation that actually refused to publish the photograph was the BBC who came back saying ‘how do we know this is true, and who are you to distribute the photograph?’ Every other news outlet took it straight away and by the early hours of the morning it was already on our breakfast television in the UK. By the time Kate and I returned from the police station about 9 o’clock at night, there were approximately 200 journalists in Praia de Luz.

I can’t say for certain what factors were influencing this intense media interest within 24 hours of her abduction. I think the fact that it was a foreign child abducted on holiday certainly played a key part. The only other case we can think of in the United Kingdom was of Ben Needham, who was abducted in 1991 on a Greek island. And we don’t know of any other cases involving British children taken whilst on holiday, so that certainly played a part. The fact that we were doctors seemed to influence things and that this had happened to professional couple and I think Madeleine’s picture herself that she was such a beautiful innocent young girl who was taken and clearly many of the journalists involved felt a great deal of empathy with us as well.

Clearly the holiday company saw this media needed to be managed and engaged Bell Pottinger straight away and they sent out their head of crisis management, Alex Woolfall, to deal with the media. They also provided to us trauma counselling, which was very, very important in how we dealt with the situation. And we had counselling sessions within 36 hours of this happening and I have to say it played a tremendous part in helping me cope with the situation and try to do things to influence the outcome. I’d like to play a video, if we can get this.

Video: ‘One cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter, Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine’s disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their investigation. Thank you.’

Read Gerry McCann’s speech

Gerry McCann: That video’s from about 9.30 pm on the 4th of May and I wanted to show it because I think even at that stage when I saw the media it filled me with dread about the potential intrusion of privacy, but I also saw it as an opportunity of helping the search, and the salient point, I haven’t seen that video for at least 18 months, and it brought back to me, the salient points of which we were trying to achieve; to get information into the investigation, which we still strive to do, as Madeleine is still missing, secondly, to let as many people as possible, know that Madeleine is missing, and thirdly, even though in that first night we were already concerned about intrusion of privacy, and I think I’ll show you in the following slides that we had very good reasons to be concerned.

So the primary objectives were to get the best possible investigation so when I put the slide up showing that we were talking about the campaign strategy, much of it was not media related, and so we had very early contact with the UK foreign office and other government officials striving to get the best possible investigation. We had to look at getting information into the enquiry and after the first few days when Madeleine was not discovered in the vicinity of the Algarve, then we had to think okay, where could she have been taken, and that influenced the decisions in which countries to visit and try and target so Spain’s a neighbouring country to Portugal, so one of the first things that we did was we got a message to David Beckham, asking him to do an appeal. He was playing for Real Madrid in this very city at the time and he agreed to that and did a very emotional appeal. And that had an amazing effect on the overall campaign because he was such a worldwide superstar and it seemed to have a snowball effect.

We took advice from the crisis management team and Alex Woolfall was absolutely brilliant. What he said to us was that for any media that you do, you must clearly define what your objective is from doing the media and secondly, ask yourself the question, how is it going to help, and that helped us tremendously with our future press conferences, statements and photo calls. We also did a number of TV and magazine interviews, I have to say, mainly at the request of the media, and that is one of the times where Alex would say you’re just feeding the beast. We subsequently had a public audience with the Pope and we had visits to Spain appealing for information and help and also we went to Germany and the Netherlands who make up the largest group of tourists to the Algarve, after the British and Irish, and we also visited Morocco which is obviously not far across the Mediterranean.

This early media coverage was generally very, very supportive. The largest weekly newspaper in the United Kingdom, the News of the World, had got a number of celebrities to agree to contribute to an award and £1.5 million was pledged. Additionally we had a businessman from Scotland who pledged another £1 million. There was, without doubt, unprecedented public interaction.

There were a huge amount of posters put up all over the United Kingdom and further afield and generally there was a focus on trying to find Madeleine and/or her abductors. The poster in the middle was released with JK Rowling’s last Harry Potter book and at the time, particularly in those first few weeks, I would say that the normal media rivalry between different organisations was put to one side and there was a real feeling that people would not let such tragic crimes happen again and that we really were going to make a difference and try and find Madeleine.

I think, I don’t expect you to read all of this, but this was an editorial in a larger selling daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, The Sun, which was printed the day after we did our first TV interviews which was more than three weeks after Madeleine was abducted and I would just like to point out the very bottom line and it says The Sun is proud, with other newspapers, to play our part in their hunt, meaning Kate and I’s hunt, for Madeleine and that summed up the general feeling at the time.

However, we even early on, realised there were a number of drawbacks of having such intense media coverage. There was a voracious, almost insatiable appetite for new stories in relation to Madeleine and actually the media were generally operating in a vacuum because of Portugal’s judicial secrecy laws and that the police weren’t allowed to speak directly to the media. We didn’t want to give too much information regarding exactly what happened and the timeline, for two reasons; one, fear of breaking the judicial law and secondly, we didn’t want the abductor to know information or put it in the public domain that only that other person could know.

Within weeks we already saw that there was a focus in the media coverage. There was a switching of attention away from Madeleine and it started to become the Kate and Gerry show. There was intense pressure to do media, which I have to say would have been for media sake, which we tried to resist. And it also became clear to us that Madeleine stories were selling newspapers and that there had to be a Madeleine story and she was becoming a commodity and people were starting to forget that she was a real child.

In June 2007, after we completed our visit, we tried to signal a change in our strategy. We appointed a campaign manager and her role was not directly a spokesperson. We anticipated that the media interest would naturally dwindle and the role was really about ensuring that we could maintain a search in the long term. We also signalled that Kate and I would not be making regular press statements or conferences and we asked the media to no longer photograph our two-year-old twins. We hadn’t asked for that immediately, primarily because I just didn’t think it was enforceable, given the huge amount of media attention and particularly in another country. We might have managed it in the UK but even I doubt it there.

Towards the end of August and September 2007 there was really quite a dramatic change in the media coverage. We were declared arguidos, which the closest thing in UK law is a person of interest and what that allows you to do is have a lawyer present during interviews. And it means that the police have to ask you questions in which your answers may incriminate yourself and as witnesses you’re not allowed to have a lawyer present and you must answer all questions. So being given the status of arguidos is actually to protect your own legal interest, and whereas that was just translated as suspects, and very much led to a number of damaging headlines.

There were multiple headlines that accused us either of directly killing Madeleine or being involved in disposing of her body and you can imagine how distressing this was when we were trying to ensure that there was an active and ongoing search and clearly we felt if people believed these stories, particularly in Portugal and further afield, then there could be no search, if people believed Madeleine was dead.

I’m just going to spend a minute or two showing you some of the front page headlines that were printed in the United Kingdom press. I would also like to point out that Amelie, who’s being carried by Kate here’s face is not pixelated so suddenly as we were declared arguidos it was okay to have our children’s photographs published on front page of newspaper again with millions of circulation, put on the internet: the multiple references to DNA in the cars, hair.

So when we came back to United Kingdom we felt that we had to do that to protect ourselves from the intrusion. We did try and combat these negative stories and really we had a trial by media at this point. The criminal lawyers who were appointed to defend us had multiple visits to the editors of all the national newspapers along with our spokesperson. And I can tell you that they assured the editors that there was not a shred of evidence to back up these wild allegations. There was a letter from the chief constable of Leicestershire police who was leading the investigation from the United Kingdom end, urging restraint in the coverage and emphasising that many of the stories that were published, had no grain of truth to them.

We also had further discussions with the Press Complaints Commission about how we may stop such coverage but despite these actions, the front page headlines continued and the previous ones all happened within a week of us coming back from Portugal. These ones are later. We are now into October and DNA reference once again; further ones in October. Now into the end of November and getting increasingly bizarre and ultimately in the space of five days, there were three front page headlines in January of 2008, that were regurgitating the same stories and for us, we come to breaking point. And at that point, although we’d had discussions earlier with Carter Ruck and Adam Tudor who’s here today, we felt enough is enough and we agreed to issue complaint letters against the worst offender and we also got an agreement from Carter Ruck that if the case did go to court, then they would represent us on a conditional fee arrangement, which was very important to our decision to press the button. The letters of complaint requested the removal of online versions of the articles, full apologies and we asked for damages and of course costs.

After an initial short wrangle, the newspapers did not defend these complaints and they did not argue for defence of truth of responsible journalism, which we were advised would have stood very little chance in a court of law. The complaints were settled out of court to our satisfaction and I have to say that we had unprecedented front page apologies and additionally a statement was read out in front of the judge in the London’s High Court.

A total of £550,000 paid in damages by one publisher alone, which was at our request, paid directly into Madeleine’s fund. This is the fund that we set up to help the search and we were told that the sum reflected the amount of damages the distress would have caused us. And there were certainly discussions that if this had gone to court, we could have argued for exemplary damages and to be honest the QC whose counsel we took, suggested that the damages we could have got would have been much, much higher than what we accepted but the most important thing for us was to get this out and to stop the coverage. And that was a main motivation for doing it. Additionally the seven friends who were on holiday with us, who had many similar allegations of being involved in a cover-up, were awarded £375,000 which they agreed also to pay into Madeleine’s fund, and we had a further small settlement with one other publisher.

Without a doubt there was an effect of these successful complaints. There was massive TV coverage and in some of the news channels it was the main news item that day. Although there was lots of press present at the High Court reading, there was rather less coverage in the newspapers, which is not surprising. Subsequent to that, I would have to say there was a dramatic effect with much more cautious and responsible reporting. And one of our concerns was obviously whether we would have burned our bridges with the media and we would no longer get co-operation when we wanted them to put information out but that has not been the case. There is still tremendous amount of appetite when we helped the media to help us get messages to the general public.

We mentioned invasion of privacy and clearly we couldn’t stop being photographed. On the very first night, the tour operators asked us if we wanted to go to a villa and I said I felt that would be worse. We’d be completely hemmed in with all the media at the end of a drive and we did stay in a holiday complex and it did allow us to move around. However when we returned home, we had news journalists and paparazzi at the end of our drive for several months, ramming cameras into the car, including when the twins were in it.

Even early on there seemed to be a complete blurring of what would be considered our public persona, doing things that related to Madeleine, and what was private so we were followed around, followed on the beach. The children were being followed and photographed, and even when we tried to get away from it all, there were surreptitious journalists trying to obtain photographs on us on our first holiday without Madeleine and they did manage to find us at the airport when we were returning home.

The Press Complaints Commission in the UK generally have been helpful in enforcing protecting the privacy of our children and that’s something that I’m not sure exists in other countries as well. The greatest violation of our invasion of privacy was the publication of Kate’s, translation of Kate’s journal, which was seized during the initial police investigation. And actually there is a judge’s order in the Portuguese file which ordered the destruction of all copies of the journal as being of no interest to the investigation. And this article, front page, with several pages, word for word of the journal was published inside, was done without our consent, and we very rapidly complained. That journal was written for Madeleine and for our other children and I cannot tell you how distressing it was for Kate to be told that it had been published. That complaint was settled, I have to say quickly, with the publishers who had been supportive up to that point generally.

I’d just like to finish with a few thoughts: If I was asked to go back and would I have interacted with the media in the same way then the answer would have been almost completely yes. We did it with the best intentions. Our hope was to get the best possible search and in fact we will continue to interact with the media if it’s appropriate. With hindsight, I would have made a clearer boundary and withdrawn from allowing the media to photograph us doing anything that was not Madeleine related in public. And again with hindsight, although we were absolutely certain when it came to it, that we were ready to take action, with hindsight we should have taken action earlier, against the newspapers in the UK for publishing these stories.

These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.

So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.

[Acknowledgement: pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Madeleine Was Here:  Cutting Edge Show - 7th May 2009

Transcript:

K: I did my check about 10.00 ‘clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see S and A in the cot and then I was looking at M’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that M or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.

Voice over: It’s now 2 years since MM was abducted while on holiday in Portugal. Her parents, K&G live near L with M’s brother and sister, four year old twins, S&A.

G: We are a family, and we’re a happy family, but we are not a complete family.

KM: I think we’re far from normality. We’re far from normality but we’re closer than we were.

K is painting the names of the three children.
She asks the children what is the name of their sister. One of the children says the full name and the other child says the shortened version.

K: I honestly believe they’re expecting her to come home, you know, one day soon. They are very much, well, when Madeleine comes back, we’ll share our toys and, you know, A is wearing Madeleine’s shoes. She’ll say well these shoes won’t fit M, now, so we’ll have to take her and get her a bigger pair of shoes when she gets home. You know.

Voice over: K has given up her work as a GP and now stays at home with the twins.

K: A lot of the places that I go now ,I used to go with Madeleine as well, so there’s little things that trigger, (mumble) like on the farm where we go quite a lot. You know, I can see Madeleine swinging on the rope in the hayloft. She was great, she was only three and she’d be like, you know, swinging backwards and forwards, you know. I can see her in the little, sort of, gypsy wagon that they had, asking me to come in and that’s hard. You get memories and reality hits in again.

It’s like kinda, of, um, tangible void, really.

Voice over: G has returned to work at GH, where he is a consultant cardiologist.

G: Given the indefinite nature of what we are going through, you have to, at some point, say, I’m going to go back.

Voice of Interviewer: Do you think you have both healed a bit.

G: Healed is a diffi…adapted, I think, is probably the right word. There’s still, there’s a scar, a deep, deep scar there, that’s, kinda, knitted at the minute but you still think it might break or come loose and stitches (mumble) But, it is, er, definitely an er… adaptation. I think.

G: There’ll always be a hope, you know, we’re living with this carrot, that potentially she could come back and I think, that makes it more painful, that you don’t know and that she’s, she’s, she’s out there and separated from you It’s less raw, erm, less painful on a day to day basis, erm, but, it’s still pretty painful. (Sighs) Erm, it’s different.

Voice over: The second anniversary of M’s disappearance is approaching. K&G want to use the media attention to keep the search in the public’s mind.

K: (in their study). It almost feels like the last, I guess, media opportunity. We really need to think about that, to get the right message out.

Voice over: (very briefly, showing part of fm (download poster page ). The M’s are organising a series of events aimed at prompting fresh evidence, including a difficult trip back to the holiday resort.

Voice over continues: A national TV appearance in the States and perhaps, most crucially a visit to the world’s leading child recovery expert. (shows E A). EA says we truly believe (shows the picture) this is what MM looks like today. Shows new image.

G: She’s either out there or she’s not and there’s nothing to say that she’s not out there alive. So it’s simple, she’s out there until proven otherwise.

Voice of Interviewer: Who actually is looking for M at the moment?

G: Er, hopefully, lots of people, er, in the general population, but in terms of an investigative strategy, then there’s no law enforcement agency that is proactively doing anything. It’s pretty amazing really. Er, when you think about, it’s a very serious crime and, erm, we’ve got to do it.

G: We’re not out making a fuss for the sake of it or to say, things were done badly or could have been done better. That’s not what we’re interested in. We’re not interested in looking back. What we want to do is look forward.

Voice over: But there are two men still looking for Madeleine, ex-Detective Inspector DE is the senior Investigating Officer. He works alongside former Detective Sargeant A C. Both are now employed by the fm fund.

AC: …given a really good description and what I’ve done is, I’ve made arrangements to go and see him on Tuesday morning.

DE: I’ve inherited an investigation which is 18 months’ old. It’s a massive investigation.

AC: For me, it’s quite simple, whether it be a high profile murder or any investigation. It’s a jigsaw puzzle and it’s just the case of putting little pieces in and that’s what we’re doing. You start at the beginning, you do the basics right and everything else comes together. and that’s what, we, hopefully, we’ve done.

DE: One of the hypothesis would be, that it’s the parents that have done it, and it goes without saying, that’s looked at and I’m sure K&G understand that. If, we had any evidence that K&G were involved, we would hand it over to the authorities.

Voice of Interviewer:: and did you find anything?

DE: No, nothing, not a shred of evidence that they were involved.

AC: When I had the interview for the job, I made it quite clear that I would only take the job, if it was an independent investigation and if there’s evidence against anybody, no matter who it is, that we give that evidence to the police.

Voice of interviewer: Do you work with different theories about what happened? Can you say what you think happened?

DE: Well, the abduction theory is the main one that we’re focusing on. If a stranger kills a child or anyone for that matter, they almost, almost always dump the body within a very close proximity of the crime scene. Now this particular area around PdL has been systematically searched. The search was started on the night and continued for weeks and weeks and no body’s been found, so that gives me hope.

Voice of Interviewer: What about if it was dumped in the sea? I mean that’s what most ….

DE: That’s always possible of course. But, again, the sea quite often, you know, gives up the bodies. But no bodies have been found. So, I think that abduction is the most likely motive. Most likely done by an individual on their own. Most likely, an individual who has close links with PdL, which is why we focused all our efforts really, or most of our efforts, certainly on PdL.

Voice over: Out of the hundreds of witnesses who came forward, only a handful are from the local Portuguese community. These are the people the investigators want to hear from so they plan to return to PdL and reconstruct key events surrounding M’s disappearance. Hoping to provoke a response.

K: They used to come and just sit and get a haircut. (laughs). Seems hard to believe it’s actually busier now then it was a year ago.

Voice of Interviewer:: Has the balance changed, because you’re not working in paid work. You’ve worked for most of your adult life.

K: Women adore cooking and washing, anyway don’t they? (laughs)

Voice of Interviewer: So, yes, that hasn’t changed?

K: I don’t think so. It’s funny, cos, you know, going back a few years, if I hadn’t been in paid work, I’d have probably felt, a bit guilty. But, now, what I’m doing is the most important job that I’ll every have to do and I think my work is incredibly valuable.

Voice over: When the Portuguese police shelved the case last summer, they released 30,000 case files, K has spent the last six months going through every document.

K: The vast bulk of it was in Portuguese. So, we then, had to get it all translated, which probably cost us about £100,000. I don’t believe anybody’s got the motivation that I have and I was desperate to go through this myself, because I knew that I’d be going through it with a fine toothcomb and I have spent months and months and months and months going through it, evenings, weekends. You know, you wanna go through it really, really quickly because I wanted to get all the information I can and know what I can do, to help find her, as quickly as possible. So, obviously, I just worked really hard, just to get through it. Often, you know, police do say the name’s in the files. It was always there, but you just need other bits of information, really, to come in to basically highlight the name. At the moment, there isn’t a big arrow and an astrix (sic) by the name.

Voice over: The most likely sighting of M and her abductor was by JT, a friend of the Mc’s. In the files, K believes another witness statement from an Irish family, describes a very similar sighting to JT’s. Less than a mile from the Mc’s apartment.

K: The reason why this is significant is, both sightings were given independently. So, when this family gave their statement they weren’t aware of J(T)’s description and there’s actually quite a lot of similarities and it does beg the question, I mean, how many people carry their children on a cold night, not covered, you know. Nothing on their arms, or their feet, no blanket. Now, either there’s been two people carrying children that way, who haven’t come forward to eliminate themselves or potentially they’re related.

Voice of Interviewer: But, you think that child is M?

K: I think it’s a good chance it could be M. Certainly, the description there, sounds to me, like M.

Voice over: K and the fm campaign co-ordinator travel to the search team’s offices. They want to discuss the details of the upcoming reconstructions and three potentially key witness statements, that all tell of a man hanging around the Mc’s apartment in the days leading up to May 3 2007.

DE: The most important one, apart, obviously, from Jane, is sighting No. 3, the man in the alleyway at the back of the apartment. No.3 is definitely a very important sighting cos it links them.

Voice over: The investigators have examined the statements from the three different witnesses and are now convinced that prior to M’s abduction, the Mc’s were being watched. The team hope this new information will give them the breakthrough they need.

DE: You’d think, it’s gotta be the same person, wouldn’t you, really?

AC: and all three say he was watching the apartment.

DE: We’re here to discuss the pending reconstruction that we want done.

K: So, basically, it looks like we’ve got five sightings, really. Two, a man with a child and three, just a suspicious individual.

DE: Yeah

K: and three, the three with the suspicious, suspicious, of the suspicious (she seems to have developed a stutter) individual, kinda, tie in together.

DE: They all tie in together.

Fm campaign co-ordinator: They’re all at similar times and place.

DE: There’s three in exactly the same location. I don’t know what the Portuguese authorities have done to actually eliminate these people from the enquiry. So, we’ve gotta presume that they haven’t done it and go with that. So, it’s just important, that we actually, we are accurate in what we know and make sure that that’s what we’re going with. No speculation. It’s gotta be the facts that we know and not try to fill in the gaps that we don’t know.

K: I mean, I’d like to go back, but not for this, to be honest. It’s kinda, just below the surface and I just, you know, I’d be scared, I think, you know, to sort of open it open it up again, really, so. yeah. I think, it’s actually going through the scenario of that night, as well, you know. Erm, I mean, you know, even what I can remember of the night, you know. Seeing G, erm, that distraught, really, sobbing and on the floor. I mean, I suppose I’m concerned that that will, er, surface again.

Voice over: K calls key witness JT, who has agreed to join G and the investigators in PdL for the reconstructions.

Scene: K talking on the phone to JT

K: “Oh, ok, pretty busy, (she laughs). Although, it’s quite good to be honest to be doing stuff and focused and it just sort of helps, you know, to be doing something positive thing. How you feeling about the weekend? I mean, I’m really nervous and I’m not going (laughs). Thank you very much by the way. No, I know, I know it’s a big step, but we appreciate it anyway so, thank you.

K: Er, she’s trying not to think about it. She just said, erm, apart from the obvious emotional concern, she’s worried about the reaction of people locally.

Voice over: Returning will be controversial. PdL was a popular family holiday resort, but things haven’t been the same since M’s abduction.

K: You know, we are aware that, unfortunately, erm, this has all been a headache really for people whose businesses are out there, their livelihoods, you know. It’s a negative, a child’s been abducted from that area and I guess in the ideal world, it would all go away, you know, everybody could move on with their lives and, but, you know, our little girl is still missing so …

K: I think regardless of what anybody thinks of me and G, and I’m a bit past caring now, really. But, you know, I think, people do feel for M and that’s the most important thing and they want M to be found and they want M to be well. There has been a question as to why now and I’d simply say, well M is still missing. Why not, now? You know.

Voice of Interviewer: Do you feel there’s a lot riding on this weekend?

K: I do, yeah, and I’m nervous. I’m nervous because I realise how important this is to do really. To get that bit of key information, I’m nervous that it’ll … all could get sabotaged or it could all go very wrong. Obviously, I don’t want that because it’s so important.

G: We are desperate for this to be successful and to be done and hopefully it might be one call, t might be 10 calls, but that’s all it’ll take, it could be just one piece of information.

DE: The offence was committed in PdL, that’s a simple fact. So, you don’t start an investigation in, er, Morocco or Spain or even Lisbon. This event’s happened in PdL. It’s a very self-contained resort and that’s where I think the answer is.

Voice over: D E is leading the search for MM. Today, he’s in PdL, on the Portuguese Algarve, to oversee filming of significant events described in witness statements. Statements, which he believes, strongly suggest that someone was watching the Mc family. He hopes that the reconstructions will lead to the discovering who that someone is.

DE: He may even have been watching the apartment for a week or more. I don’t think it was someone random. In my experience random just doesn’t happen. Someone just doesn’t go in, … passerby, and pick up a child and take it. These things are planned.

DE with Pimpleman actor

DE: This, erm, scene. You’re standing over there and you’re standing at an angle

Action: filming starts

Witness 1: Child and woman walking.

Voice over: Witness No. 1 is a British tourist. She first saw something strange four days before M disappeared.

Sunday, April 29, approx 08.00

Witness 1: I was walking along the road with my daughter, when I saw a man. I grabbed my daughter’s hand and pulled her towards me because for some reason, he unnerved me.

Voice over: She saw the same man again. This time close to the Mc’s apartment on the day before M went missing

Wednesday 2 May approx 15.00

Witness 1: The next time I saw him, he was standing on the opposite side of the road to the apartment. He appeared to be watching it. He was about 5’10”, slim build and wearing casual clothes, jeans, I think. I would describe him as very ugly, pitted skin, with a large nose.

DE talking to a young girl (Witness 3)

DE: …and as you’re just passing here, this chap will be stood over there. So, if you just, you come up, if you just glance over at him and ….

Scene shows Witness 2, Mum, girl and two dogs

Voice over: The second witness is a school girl, who lives near the holiday complex. Three days before M was taken, she was with her mum outside the M’s apartment.

Monday 30 April approx 08.15

Witness 2: I was walking to the school bus stop. I go this way to school every day. As I was walking down the road, near the apartment, I saw a man on the small path behind the block. My grandparents used to live in that apartment. So, I always look at it, as I pass by. The man seemed to be looking at the balcony of the ground floor apartment. He was wearing a black jacket and leaning against the wall.

Voice over: She saw him again, as well, the day before M was taken.

Witness 2: I didn’t go to school that day because I had an ear infection. I was walking up the road with my two dogs, when I saw the man. He was standing on the road opposite the OC and he was staring at the apartment.

DE talking to older couple (Witness 3)

DE: You have him coming from your apartment, which is over here, somewhere. You turn the corner and walk down the path.

Lady witness (the couple) (Witness 3): What the two of us?

DE: Yes, the two of you together.

DE: This was actually a sketch that was drawn by the witness at the time and, er, as you can see, he’s just stood where we are now. (shows sketch the couple) Make eye contact with him and just walk straight on past.

Voice over: Witness No 3 is a man with his partner from Cheshire. He gave a statement to the police describing a man he’d seen near the apartment.

Witness 3 (Man) I can’t remember whether I saw the man on Wednesday 2 or Thursday 3 May (approximately 11.30). But as we walked along the road, I saw a man standing next to the wall by the parking area. On the opposite side of the road was a white van. I paid particular attention to him, because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block as I walked past him, I looked at him, and for a split second, we had eye contact but then he just carried on staring at the apartment.

DE: We’re asking for people to come forward with information. For me, one of the big things in any major crime, the perpetrators always confide in someone else. They’ve gotta get it off their chest and it’s that person, as much as anything, that we’re aiming at. Someone knows something.

Voice over: G is back in PdL. His arrival and the reconstructions are attracting a lot of media attention. But for the people who live here, it’s attention they can do without.

G: This is an area that relies strongly on tourism and people’s livelihoods have been affected and I can totally understand when people are suffering economically, that they get resentful. But, hope they can understand as well, that as parents, we need to find M.

Voice over: The simmering anger is evident. A brand new billboard poster of M with “Help me” in Portuguese has been splattered with paint and at the holiday complex G can hear the hostility (heckling)

G: No one, even with a heart of stone, can take away that there’s a little girl missing. Why anyone would not want to help find her is a mystery and obviously if we find M, then everyone can move on.

Voice over: He goes back to the Tapas Bar where they ate in the evenings, while the children slept in the apartment.

G: I can’t remember exactly where the table was. It was kinda in this bit, so it’d be about around here and I was kinda sitting in this bit and K was here. Well, you could see where the shutters are now and the bit of the hedge, it’s grown. It was cut, you know, a couple of feet lower than that.

CONTINUED .......

Second Section

Voice over: For the first time in two years, G returns to apartment 5a of the OC.

Voice over: The last place where he saw his daughter, M, asleep in her bed.

G: So, I actually came in and M was just at the top of the bed here, where I’d left her lying and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head It’s terrible because, I , erm, had one of those really proud father moments, where I just thought, you know. I just thought, your absolutely beautiful and I love you and I just paused for a minute and then, I just pulled the door closed again and just to about there and, er, I felt incredibly proud standing there and having, you know, 3 beautiful children.
That’s the, I think the most ironic thing of the lot, that, that momentary pause I had, at that door, that’s exactly what I felt like. You know, a few minutes before our world was essentially shattered and probably, 3 or 4 minutes before M was taken and we obviously, absolutely, er, what’s the word, persecuted ourselves for not being here and, erm, there is no doubt, that not being here at that moment, erm, increased the risk of it.

Voice over: The Mc’s were on holiday with a group of friends. In the evenings, they all ate together and took it in turns to make half-hourly checks on each other’s children. Two of the group, MO and JT, both crucial witnesses, have returned to help DE with the reconstructions. It’s believed that M was taken shortly after her father’s check at 9 o’clock. In the 45 minutes that followed, there were two significant sightings of a man carrying a young girl. The first was by JT. She was looking in on her sick daughter, when she saw G returning from his check. He was talking to a friend, JW, at the side of the road. However, J(T) and G remember the scene differently.

JT: So, I think you were about here. Cos, I think that you were standing like that and, J(W) was there, with his pram, pointing down that way. Cos, I think if you’d been looking at me, I would’ve said something, cos I would’ve said about, cos K had been moaning that you’d been gone a long time watching the football.

G: I’m almost certain that when I came out, I came over and he was here and I was like that. That’s my memory of it, it’s like J(W) is 6’3” or something and looking up and then turning in, when I finished. That’s my memory of it.

JT: Yeah. I mean, well we just …….

DE: It’s like I said, there are, you know, inconsistencies, you know, in every major investigation.

JT: Ok, that’s fine.

DE: Obviously, the most important thing is what you saw, Jane. It’s not where G and J(W) were actually stood. Because they didn’t obstruct your view of the man. So ….

JT: I was walking up here to do the check and probably, as I got to , it’s hard to know exactly where, but probably, about here, I saw the man walk across the road there, carrying the child. I just got up and walked out the Tapas bar, past G talking to J(W). That’s when I saw somebody walk across the top of the road, carrying a child and I think, I did think, oh, there’s somebody taking their child home to bed. But, they didn’t look like a standard tourist. This is ridiculous isn’t it? It just looks so much like somebody abducting a little girl, when you look at it. It just looks so obvious when you know, you know. Just look at it and you think, why the hell didn’t you think there is somebody abducting a child. That was not even a thought, that somebody’s gonna go into an apartment and take a child out. You know, you’re probably the one person that could’ve actually stopped it and you think, oh, what if? It’s that what if? what if?, what if and you can take those what ifs to ad infinitum really.

Voice over: At 9.30 pm, half an hour after G’s check it was MO’s turn to look in on all the children. He went into the Mc’s apartment, but didn’t go into the bedroom and so didn’t see if M was missing.

MO: Pretty much from the approach down here, you can see straight into the room. So you can see the cots as you are walking in. So it never really felt like there was any real need to, sort of, go all the way into the room. Erm, you could see both cots and see into them from there. I, sort of, ummed and ahed about the angle and things. All I just know is that I had an unimpeded view and it was just dead quiet, and just… why I didn’t take those extra couple of steps in

G: Yeah, I mean, I was saying this earlier, that at no point, other than that night, did I go stick my head in. That was the only time, because the door was like that. I mean, I knew how I’d left it.

MO: It’s more that you know I’d felt you’d done enough. You’ve been and seen. It’s quiet.

G: Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. We didn’t want to disturb them. Sigh. Stupid, now, isn’t it.

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw M being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and ½ mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.

DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night M was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, it’s really important. We need to find out who this person was.

Family Witness Statement: I was with my family. We’d been out for the night and we were walking up the street when I saw a man and he was carrying a child. I thought they were father and daughter, so I wasn’t so suspicious. The girl was about 4, she looked like my granddaughter, blonde hair, pale white skin, typically British. The man didn’t look like a tourist. I can’t explain why. It was, probably, from his clothes.

G: Someone knows the information and someone knows who took M and someone knows where she is. Let’s get moving! Let’s get the phone ringing.

Voice over: At home K is preparing for the inevitable media attention that will surround the second anniversary of M’s disappearance.

K: ( Showing photo album) well this one. I think is really sweet and it’s M just when she arrived home from hospital, erm, to our house. I think she looks quite cute, wrapped up in a little bundle. She’s got those eyes. I tell you, those eyes that never closed.

For us they’re not just photos and especially now, not having M in our life, they’re more than photos and to me, each photo is very special. I mean, it’s M and we’ve given out so much of our daughter to the world really. You know, you just want to be able to retain some of it.

Voice of Interviewer: Are we allowed to see this one?

K: uh-hum (nods head in agreement)

Voice of Interviewer: Do you still feel her physically, as much as you did?

K: Tut… well, I know the M that I know, you know. I don’t know M at, you know, nearly six. She might look different. She could be speaking a different language (Scene shows her packing for trip to States) She might have her hair different, she might have different interests, but, you know, she’s still our daughter.

G: (holding up a suit). I think that’s pretty business-like isn’t it?

K: Yes

G: Right, put that away

Voice over: K&G are preparing for a trip to America that they hope will breathe new life into the search for M. As well as an interview on the OW show, they plan on visiting the world’s leading child recovery experts, who are creating an image of M aged six.

K: We’re going to America tomorrow and initially, we’re going to Washington to the NCMEC

EA: Circulating the photograph of, er, of a child, who was not quite four, two year’s later is not good enough.

When, we started this 10 year’s ago. The goal was to use technology, er, to keep these cases alive. To provide new hope for parents and new leads for law enforcement and we said at the time, wouldn’t it be great if we could actually find one of these kids and we found 900 of them. Er, everyone of these 900 cases, the child had been missing at least two years. So, what we’ve tried to do is to take your photos, er, as a guide. Young children’s faces change very quickly. As you can see, she has her mother’s jawline. She has her mother’s mouth. It’s striking. She has her mother’s dimples.

K: That’s me, as well, isn’t it? (referring to picture of her as a child)

EA: This is you, as well. Exactly.

K laughs

EA: But G, she has your nose.

G: The genes mix quite well. (Both laughing).

EA: They really do. They really do. I mean it’s a remarkable example of the best of genetics. So, leaning heavily, on heredity, and using every tool we can find, we truly believe that this is what MM looks like today and we hope that somebody, that millions of somebodies will look at the picture, but, that somebody will be moved to reach out and say, I think I have information.

G: I glanced It’s a different child and that is really important. It’s not the four year old or nearly four year old little girl and it’s hard, because, In our memory, we remember her the last day she was in Portugal and what she looked like, so…

K: It’s a very emotional thing, really, to see my daughter in a different way to how I remember her. Erm, so if I’m honest, initially, I, was quite upsetting and then I started to look at features and I thought, well, that’s definitely M and that bits M and, you know, yes, she is 2 year’s older.

EA: Despite the love and the care you that you put into raising her, at that age, M may not know she’s missing. M may have been told, well, now you are supposed to come with me. So, we hope that other children will look at this. It’s not inconceivable that she’s in a classroom somewhere. The goal here is to reach out to people around the world and say. Somebody knows something and if you do, call us.

Voice over: K&G now need to publicise this new image. The first step is to travel from Washington to Chicago for an interview on OWS, that will be broadcast in 144 countries.

G: It’s really important we get this image out, as far and as wide as possible. Because, ultimately, we don’t know where M is and if she was moved out of Portugal quickly, she could be anywhere and that’s the main reason for doing O(W) get that image out there

K: Nervous, but, it’s like anything we’ve done, you know, we’re doing it for a reason and the reason’s to held find M so just get on with it.

G: I actually think there’s not much more else we can do right now.

K: I think we’ve achieved a lot in the last few weeks and we’re really hoping that somebody who has been sitting there, knowing something, will suddenly feel the courage and compassion really to come forward and of course, we’ve also released the age progression image of M, now age 6 and I think that’s important. Because that’s almost appealing to people, who may know M, whatever M’s called now

K: So I feel, we’ve all worked really hard. I think what we’ve done is positive and productive. I actually feel the chance of us finding M is higher now, it’s more likely to yield a result and I actually feel a little excited, really, about what we’ve just done so.

G: I think it’s like, we want it out there, now. All the work’s been done and it’s all being co-ordinated round the anniversary. But we want it out and it’s just, let’s get moving.

K: We just need that one person, there might be more than one person, but one person to come forward and say I’ve seen that girl or I remember something from that night and that could unravel the whole thing.

[Acknowledgement - pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Philomena McCann

Philomena McCann, the aunt of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, has criticised police in Portugal.
5th May 2007

Interviewer: It's, errr... now more than 30 hours since 3-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing at the, errr... family holiday resort in the Algarve. Her parents, at the time, were having dinner nearby.

Let's speak to Phil McCann, who is Madeleine's aunt. Errr... hello to you, Phil, thank you for joining us, errr... this morning. Errr... You must be in constant contact, errr... with the family out there in the Algarve. Errm... Just give us an idea what the police are doing to try and find Maddie?

Philomna McCann: Well, the police have stepped up the search, much more than before anyway, and I spoke to Gerry about half an hour ago and he said that they are doing everything... the sniffer dogs are really evident. There's lots and lots of activity but he just thinks it's too little too late.

I: Do they feel, Phil, that, errr... the police missed an opportunity, on that first night, after, errr... Maddie's parents reported her missing?

PM: Absolutely. It was hours before the local police turned up and we're talking two bobbies that totally downplayed the incident and said that Maddie had maybe just wandered off, and that... but what 3-year-old would wander off for hours on their own? It took the CID 5 hours before they responded to come and even then it was, kind of, shrug of the shoulders. There's been no feedback from the Portuguese police to Gerry. The stress levels have been through the roof because of this, it's just been shocking.

I: Phil, do, errr... Maddie's parents think that she has been snatched then or do they think there's any chance that she might have... might have gone missing because she just opened the door of the apartment and... and did go for a wander?

PM: I mean, it is completely ludicrous that anyone would suggest that Madeleine went for a wander. She's a 3-year-old that loves her family. She was sleeping between her brother and sister. She dotes on her parents. She's just like a normal 3-year-old; happy, carefree... Why would she wander away from people who love her? Gerry and Kate knew instantly - which is why Kate responded by being hysterical - that someone had snatched her daughter. Convincing other people has been the hardest job. Kids don't just walk away when they're happy, carefree and well-adjusted, and that's what Madeleine is. But, she must be so petrified now.

I: Errm... We know the sort of operation which would have been, errr... kick-started in this country when a child goes missing. Errr... there would be a televised appeal; there would be a press conference. Do you know if anything like that is taking place over in Portugal to... to, errr... widen the search for Maddie at this time?

PM: Well, Gerry says that anything that's happened has been British led. They had some posters put up and people have been helping distribute... and the kindness of people that they don't know, as well as their frem... family and friends, has been utterly immense. But in the Portuguese end it's been so subdued, it's all low-key; it's not enough, they have to do so much more. I don't know what the press is like in Portugal today, in the media, but certainly the response we have had from the media in Britain has been tremendous but it's not mirrored in Portugal, from what we can see. It's just a case of: 'Well, how can this happen in a family-friendly resort?', 'How can... errr... it's not...', you... you know, 'You're over-reacting', 'Calm down', 'Blah, blah, blah'. Well, you know, almost two days later, Madeleine's missing. Calm down? I don't think so. They need to get their act in order. It's shocking.
____________________

'It Is Abhorrent To Suggest Bad Parenting' Sky News videos
5th May 2007

Philomna McCann: The childcare facilities: you're leaving people with other folk that you don't know. Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids. They regularly go across to check; maybe if the kids have been disturbed or crying or anything and if they'd come out the front they would have seen them. It is obvious that someone with malicious intent went through that window and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family. To suggest in any possible way that Kate and Gerry are negligible pare... negligent pare... negligent parents, sorry, is just abhorrent to all of us. They love their family; they would never willingly, knowingly or in any way neglect them. It's horrible.

Ian Woods: Very difficult for Gerry and Kate to face the media last night, I mean, Gerry was... was very strong in... in reading his statement. Have you... have you spoken to them this morning? How are... how are they doing?

PM: I've spoken to Gerry several times. Errr... they're a bit better; they had a counsellor speak to them for an hour and a half this morning and it's helped give Gerry, errr... some perspective and really helped them, you know, get things... and make small steps is what they're trying to do; they're trying to keep it together. They had a small amount of sleep which has had an enormous impact on regenerating their... their zest and, you know, their life f... trying to find Madeleine is all they can think about and it's what everyone has to focus on. They need to find Madeleine; she has to come home.

IW: And it must be very frustrating for them to just be sitting, waiting for news. Is there... is there a temptation for them to... to get out and... and try and search themselves, even though, you know, that is only going to be adding a very small amount to the... the much wider search that the police are doing?

PM: Yeah, well, I mean, for Gerry and Kate, they want to get out there. They want to search everything; they want to leave nothing unturned but, then, that's for everyone that we've spoken to. This crisis has hit so many people, from our f.... close friends and family to people across the world. We've had an enormous amount of, errr... support from people; the media have been terrific in trying to, errm... show this to people and how much it's affected us. She's just a little girl.
____________________

Aunt: 'Toddler's Parents Are Not To Blame' Sky News videos
9th May 2007

Philomna McCann: They were going back to check into a locked apartment, where they had left their kids sleeping, you know. They're good parents; they tried so hard to have kids. They've got three beautiful children that they absolutely dote on.

Kay Burley: You must be very... get quite cross when there's any criticism of... of them, having left them having left her on her own?

PM: Well, it's completely unjustified. They're normal parents who love their children and would never neglect them in any way and anyone suggesting that they... that they were neglecting them... it's just completely insulting.

KB: I'm sure that's true. How long are they, errm... how long are they going to stay out there? Until they find Maddie?

PM: They'll stay until they find Madeleine. How can they go on? They need their daughter. They absolutely need her and we... we... we just need to have Madeleine home. These person or people have to bring her back to us. I mean, the whole family needs her here - not just Gerry and Kate, although, I mean, she's just such an integral member of the family. If you... I mean you suggested that we are a close family; if, you know, a big part of that goes... and we love children, most of us, you know... my job's working with children; Gerry and Kate have caring occupations. Both of them dedicated their life to having people, you know, to helping having... getting out there, and, you know, to have this happen is just the worst possible scenario.

KB: Sure.
___________________

McCann Relatives Launch Fighting Fund Sky News videos
16th May 2007

Philomna McCann: Errr... well, personally I... I'm heartened by the support I've received today in Parliament. There have been lots of suggestions; from the top, to some of the lesser, but as much appreciated, individuals within the Parliament. I have been galvanised by their support and I take on board some of their ideas which I have found very helpful, thank you.

Q: Could you give us an idea of what the Chancellor offered you in advice?

PM: Well, the Chancellor, more than anything, gev [gave] me some moral support and his advice I'd like to firstly share with my brother before I share it with the rest of the country and keep him in the loop rather than, errr... the media and people, errr... I'm sure at some point you will be made aware of the suggestions that have been made but for now I'd like to mull them over with my family because they deserve to hear them first, quite frankly.

Q: Were you moved by the mood of the house during Prime Minister's question time?

PM: What, the light-hearted mood when there was much of the jocularity? Or the support for the family? I presume you mean the second. Yes, it was very, errr... heartrending. It, errm... it really does help you to know that so many people support you and my family. It, errr... it is really, really nice.
_____________________

"They're trying to get Kate to admit to having accidentally killed Madeleine and disposed of her body"
7th September 2007


Philomena McCann: Part of it is that they're, errm... trying to get Kate to admit to having accidentally killed Madeleine and disposed of her body... hidden and disposed of her body - which is complete nonsense. Errr... It has no factual basis whatsover and, looking at the scenario: assuming that when they'd gone home, early evening, Kate has murdered her daughter and then gone out for some convivial company with friends, sat and had a meal and later rai... you know, raised an alarm - but sat through all that perfectly normal with people and then done it. It just beggar's belief; it's not true.
____________________

"They tried to get Kate to confess"
7th September 2007

Philomena McCann: They tried to get Kate to, errr... confess to having accidentally killed, errr... Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer, which was: 'If you say that you killed Madeleine by accident; and then hid her; and then disposed of the body, errr... then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less. You may get off because people feel sorry for you; it was an accident.'
____________________

This Morning, ITV1, 07 September 2007 Prime Time

Following the news that Kate McCann had been named as a suspect in the case, Madeleine's aunt spoke to Phillip Schofield and Ruth Langsford on the 'This Morning' show on ITV1.

Ruth: "Only a week or so ago, you were in here talking to us and so much has happened in such a short space of time. I know that you've spoken to Kate this morning, 11 hours she was at the station answering questions, how is she this morning?"

Philomena: "She's completely outraged, just like the rest of the family. It's inconceivable what’s happening to them out there. There they are, they're victims of this horrendous crime and now they're trying to sully their name in this disgusting manner with this smear campaign. It’s just unbelievable."

Ruth: "I know that during the news reports we've been seeing in the last couple of days it has been stressed that they are being questioned as witnesses not suspects. Is that still the case Philomena?"

Philomena: "Not that I am aware of, no. As far as I know they've changed their status and they are suspects. And I do know that some of the things that Kate has been asked are just incomprehensible. It's just the most shocking news ever."

Phillip: "We're confused because we've been waiting all week, in fact for longer then that, for this piece of forensic evidence which was supposed to throw the case wide open and certainly shed some light on the areas we haven't understood in the past. This is not what we were expecting, certainly not what you were expecting. Has there been anything mentioned to you about this forensic evidence we were supposed to be hearing about?"

Philomena: "Yes, there has been things mentioned, it's about body fluids being on the family's clothes. I'm not sure exactly, I don't know in-depth details. Some of it seems to me more then a little ludicrous. Of course there would be Madeleine's fluids on their clothes, they pick her up. She's a little girl who get's hugged and lifted. How does that change their status? As far as I can see all they're trying to do is fit Kate and Gerry up now because they haven't found this perpetrator, who's wandering about completely free to act as he pleases and possibly do that again. But at this time Kate and Gerry's names are just being totally sullied."

Phillip: "Does this mean that they are now formal suspects? Am I correct in saying they have moved up to this 'arguido' status?"

Philomena: "Yes that's true"

Phillip: "Does that offer them any other protection that they didn't have before?"

Philomena: "The only protection it offers is that they're allowed to take legal representation in with then when they're being questioned by the police and the other thing that it does is that allows them not to answer questions in case they incriminate themselves. But that's not what Kate and Gerry want to do. The police are trying to suggest that Kate has in some way accidentally killed Madeleine. How ludicrous is that when one of their friends actually saw Madeleine being carried up the street by some unknown assailant?"

Ruth: "How much was Kate actually allowed to tell you? What kind of things did they ask her that's made her now feel that they think she is a suspect in this?"

Philomena: "They were saying 'Tell us what you did with her?' Kate's like 'You must be insane to think we'd put ourselves through this'. It's just nonsense."

Phillip: "The relationship between your family and the police, up until now, has appeared to be very good. They're been frustration and certainly a discussion that mistakes have been made but that aside you do seem to have had a good relationship with the police."

Philomena: "My brother's telling me, do not antagonise these people. The enquiry is in their hands, we have to work with these people, they are our best hope. You have to be very political with what you say about them buy hey the gloves are off, these people are imbeciles."

Ruth: "Is it right that Gerry is being questioned separately today?"

Philomena: "He's going in at 2pm today. But he's not the main suspect, for some unknown reason there's something about a sniffer dog sniffing Kate. Suddenly a dog can talk and says she smelled a death. How can that be when a British sniffer dog came out months after Madeleine's case. They're doctors, if there's a smell of death on them could that possibly be a patient?"

Philomena: "You can imagine how low they feel about they with this, and yet there's this adrenaline pumping through them because at the end of the day all the time they're treating Kate and Gerry as suspects, the perpetrator is out there laughing that they've got away with this."

Ruth: "How much do you think these recent developments will affect your campaign now?"

Philomena: "I think with out a doubt they'll be a large number of people who think mud sticks. Whatever they say this has been covered by every news channel. It's all those adages, 'there's no smoke without fire'. Well it depends where that smoke's coming from and I think that smoke is just a smokescreen."

Phillip: "Philomena, we'll leave it there for the moment, all of us with our mouths wide open with shock and maybe we could speak to you again on Monday after the weekend and you could give us another update."

Philomena: "Can I just tell the whole audience out there. This is a complete fabrication. Gerry and Kate have got nothing to with the disappearance of their daughter. It has been them pushing this investigation from day one. It is just not true."
___________________

McCann Aunt: 'The Twins Come First' Sky News videos
9th September 2007

Philomna McCann: It's a new stage of moving forward but, errr... primarily the twins have to come first. Their development is crucial and Kate and Gerry are putting their needs before everything else, errm... the investigation will carry on but they have to get the t... twins settled at home.
____________________

McCanns at an 'all time low' BBC News video
10th September 2007

Dermot Murnaghan: Good morning, to you. Errm... have you managed to speak to Gerry or Kate since their return to Britain?

Philomna McCann: Yes, I did, last night.

DM: And how would you describe their mood?

PM: Well, it was very mixed, actually. There was relief at being home in familiar surroundings but they were exhausted emotionally and physically and just wanted to have some rest, basically, and take stock of where they are now.

DM: It must have been an emotional return, though, for them; returning to a house they left four months ago with three children... with just two?

PM: It was very emotional, Dermot. There was genuine relief to come back and get the kids home into a safe environment because that has been their utmost concern recently; the safety of the children, especially with the media spotlight being on them. The kids needed to be out of that at home, errr... the British journalists have been much more responsible than the Mediterranean journalists, who have continued, throughout this ordeal, photographing and filming Sean and Amelie, specifically after they were not... and even some journalists had, errr... entered the villa grounds without permission; climbing the wall; coming through the gate, etcetera. It's a real concern and Gerry and Kate are glad to have the kids back but they are really desperately upset that Madeleine is not with them and, you know, it's a very emotionally trying time for them.

DM: How angry are you; how angry are they about being made official suspects by the Portuguese police? We heard a little bit from Gerry as they emerged from the plane at East Midlands airport when he... he made that statement, errm... he did look very, very drawn - very, very angry.

PM: Well, actually, he looked very distressed to me. I could hear his voice quivering and breaking. The fact that they have been made this 'elguido' status. They're not allowed to discuss things; they have been effectively gagged by the Portuguese. I'm furious; the rest of the family are furious. It's adding insult to injury. They're at an all time low and we are shocked by how they have been treated, especially when we had no real understanding of what this 'elguido' status meant and the Portuguese legal system, to us, is a complete maze and we now need help to negotiate that; and that process has already started. So, Kate and Gerry have met with some legal representatives to help guide us though this maze and what they could potentially face.

DM: You say it's a maze, you say it's very confusing but are they still prepared to fully cooperate with the police investigation; are they expecting to return to Portugal; will they return if asked for further questioning?

PM: Errr... yes, they absolutely will cooperate with the police. They are more than prepared to undergo more questioning. It is their intention, regardless of whether they are asked to return, to return at regular intervals to try and put pressure on the Portuguese police to change the direction of the investigation in order to look for Madeleine - a live, little 4-year-old girl who's desperately sought by her parents, the rest of the family and, from what I hear, the rest of the world. We all want her home safely.

DM: Just want to ask you, though, about the cooperation with the... with the Portuguese police. It's reported in a lot of papers this morning, I don't know if you've seen them yet, that when they were questioned at the end of last week, by the police, they refused, between them, to answer about 40 questions, they remained silent on so many issues. Why did they do that? Why won't they just say everything they know; answer all those questions to the police?

PM: Well, Dermot, you're saying that they didn't answer 40 questions. That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible. Therefore they probably felt that those questions were not at all justified or possibly that they had already answered them and as fully as they possibly could, therefore there was nothing else they could say to further that.

DM: And a genuine feeling coming from you...

PM: I have... I don't know because... sorry, Dermot...

DM: Go on.

PM: But Gerry and Kate are not talking about their questions; they can't. They have been gagged by the Portuguese system. You saw Gerry on the tarmac reading the statement saying that they would love to say more but are unable to because they could be por... prosecuted, under the portuguese system, if they discuss what was said at their questioning.

DM: And... and.. finally, Philomena, back to what you were saying earlier, do... do they fear this... this cloud of suspicion, errm... is masking, what they see as... as... a the real issue here; the disappearance of Madeleine?

PM: Absolutely. The... the way the Portuguese have turned this investigation round and they are no longer looking for a live child. They are assuming, on spurious evidence, that Madeleine is now dead. Well, we don't agree with that - in any shape or form - and we want the investigation changed round to look for Madeleine alive, as we reckon she is, because the evidence from, errr... the organisations that look for missing and exploited children, points to kids like Madeleine being alive - not murdered - because their value is too high. We believe Madeleine is alive. We don't know her current status; how well she is; but we want her actively sought.
____________________

Does the evidence stack up? BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast
10th September 2007

Nicky Campbell: ...Gerry McCann's sister, Philomena McCann. Philomena, good morning, thank you for talking to us and joining us.

Philomena McCann: Good morning.

NC: Errr... good morning. Errm... give us an idea what Kate and Gerry are going through right now.

PM: Well, they're going through torment, aren't they? They've had to leave Portugal without their daughter; their beloved daughter who's the apple of their eye. They've left a country - that they never wanted to leave without Madeleine - and it's heartbreaking. However, they have had to look at Sean and Amelie and their safety and security and bring them home. They've done what's right for the children and to protect their welfare.

NC: And the fact that in some people's minds, now, because of the fact that they are suspects - 'arguido' - and, you know, there is... a doubt about their innocence has been sewn. How do they feel about that?

PM: Well, they're irate (laughs)...

NC: Irate?

PM: ...as we all are.

NC: Mmm...

PM: But peo... Yeah, of course, they're irate. They're very angry; they can't believe how this has turned round, but not just for the blackening of their name, but because the status of the investigation has changed. The Portuguese police need to be looking for Madeleine, not trying to look at evidence that implicates Gerry and Kate, who have absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance. There is an abductor out there who must be laughing in his socks right now, knowing that the... the limelight has now totally gone from them and has been deflected onto Gerry and Kate, who are entirely innocent of this matter.

NC: What about these claims about the... the DNA? What... what do you make of that? The finding of Madeleine's blood, or rather DNA, in... in the... speculation is the hire car and also in the apartment.

PM: Well, I'm no criminologist, and no expert in this, but there's a phrase that I've watched in many a TV show and that's: 'Transference DNA'. Trans... Madeleine's DNA would be on their clothes, their hands and things and that lasts for a long, long time. I'm no expert, as I said, I don't know how long it lasts but now that Gerry and Kate know what the evidence is, they will be able to take legal advice on this and will understand this much further. You can't expect us to know exactly how to treat this; we need help and advice. As I said, this is completely new to us and we want experts to tell us exactly what this means.

NC: It's a nightmare for you, isn't it?

PM: It is a nightmare. Apart from anything else, we are, kind of, just professional people who go about our daily business and the media scrutiny has been intense - which also goes back to the fact that Kate and Gerry have been under immense media scrutiny since this happened. How could they possibly have done some of the things that are being suggested? Like: hide her body; dig her body up; put it in a car. There's not been a time when the media camera has not been on them; as soon as they've left the apartment; gone for a walk. We've watched it, on 24 hours, on TV. How can it be possible that they could have done these things? The allegations are ridiculous, at best.

NC: And just the other... another couple, just to... to get you to... to comment on: The claim that Kate had the smell of death on her clothes and also the claim that Madeleine had been sedated.

PM: (long pause) Yeah... I mean, sedated by what? I know the strongest thing that Kate and Gerry give to the kids is Calpol. If that's a sedative, then there must be 90% of the British public quaking in their boots because they all use it. It's pathetic. If that's what they're trying to suggest, it's fatuous, at best, and, other than that, Kate and Gerry are loving parents; they tried so hard to have children. They had to undergo IVF; Kate had difficult pregnancies. They were delighted to have Madeleine; their first born child. They would never do anything to harm her. The worst I've ever seen Kate and Gerry do, or even heard them say, is go and sit on the naughty step. That's hardly, you know, undermining her physically and mentally. It's crazy.

NC: What do you think, errr... Philomena, of the Portuguese police?

PM: Well, I think that they should be looking for Madeleine alive; I don't want Madeleine lost in all of this; on these allegations and counter allegations of whatever else. I don't really care about, you know, what's been said, I just want them to get out there and find Madeleine; do their job, look for her; look for her alive. The abductor has her, or has passed her on to someone else. They need to be looking for her actively. That's what's important in all this, it's Madeleine.

NC: Do you think she's still alive?

PM: Yes, I do think she's still alive. We have had no evidence contrary to that and as for cadaver dogs sniffing death on Kate; I mean, what is she? Lassie? Is she gonna speak to them and ask what they're smelling? Kate's a doctor - what does this mean? You know, they've been given a team that send her to go and sniff Kate's clothes and the dogs are told what to do. If they start barking, how are we supposed to interpret that? Except, perhaps, they're 'barking'.

NC: Philomena McCann, thank you very much.
____________________

[Special thanks to Nigel Moore of mccannfiles,com for transcripts and pamalam for hosting his now defunct website]

Sandra Felgueiras interviews McCann couple for RTP1 3rd November 2009 transcript

Sandra: Hello Kate, Hi Gerry. You have called us here, or invited us here to show these two new pictures of how Madeleine might look like now at the age of six and also to watch a video, a new appeal video, but you have been recently together in Lisbon. Have you truly felt that the Portuguese public opinion is still with you?

Gerry: I think obviously there has been a lot written that is very negative, and ehm it is inevitable that given so much..., so much was written negative about us, that some people felt that we were involved, that we do feel now, that legal action has been taken and the judicial process has seen that there is no evidence to support what has been written.

Sandra: You are talking about Goncalo Amaral's book?

Gerry: Yeah, but also with the publication of the file in the first place erm an initial process of the criminal erm file and regarding Madeleine's disappearance. You know there is no evidence that we were involved and Subsequently the action we have taken recently I think that people are now prepared to continue the search for Madeleine and that is why we are here today asking people to help us trying to get this very important message...

Sandra: But how can you explain that Goncalo Amaral has sold over 175.000 copies defending that you played the key role in Madeleine's disappearance?

Kate: I mean I think it's important to remember Sandra, the only victim in all of this is Madeleine erm and that is obviously why we are here today really, we are trying to, we are trying to (sigh) reach that person who knows something, and there is somebody who knows something, not the person who has taken Madeleine, but the person on the periphery, and that might just be erm a colleague of the person, a neighbour, a fami..., you know this person, the abductor, has got a mother, a brother, a cousin, a part of family, so that...

Sandra: Do you believe that the public opinion in Portugal right now after reading the book of Goncalo Amaral erm still can support you? Still can answer to that appeal?

Gerry: Now that's the key point why we Are Taking action Sandra and that is part of the legal process as you know. There is a already an injunction out against the book he's banned from repeating his thesis that Madeleine is dead and we were involved. Now that has been two separate judges plus the original judge on file file have said that that. That's what we will do with discussing the facts. Thats the correct place to discuss. Goncalo Amaral and the book..

Sandra: Are you saying that Goncalo Amaral doesn't have the right to share his opinion, his conviction under the evidence he gathered into a book? He doesn't have freedom of expression to say that and to publish it?



Gerry: There is a difference between freedom of expression and evidence to support a theory. What the judges have said there isn't evidence to support this theory, so he shouldn't be saying it. And that is about as much as we want to say about him. You know that's a legal process and we have challenged it, it's been through the judicial process and thats the correct.....

Sandra: The files were closed and no thesis won. How can you explain that after Goncalo Amaral, Paulo Rebelo, the next investigator, also pursued this thesis? He also investigated the possibility of you both play the key role in Madeleine's disappearance?

Gerry: It was investigated, the evidence was presented to the judiciary, and the judiciary concluded there was no evidence to support that thesis, that's very...

Sandra: No DNA, but how do you explain...

Gerry: No no...

Sandra: ...the coincidence...

Gerry: The DNA is only one aspect of it, there was no evidence to support our involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, that is the key thing. Madeleine is still missing, we are here as her family to continue the search. Now I can't speak for people who have read the book but obviously it doesn't stand up to critical appraisal (?).

Sandra: But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by British and not Portuguese dogs?

Kate: Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...

Sandra: So you don't have an explanation for that?

Gerry: Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.

Sandra: Ask the dogs, no Gerry? Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?

Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.

Sandra: Unreliable?

Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what they have ensured us, if they are tested scientifically.

Sandra: You read the files, Kate?

Kate: Yes I have read the files.

Sandra: What did shock you most? Any part of the... any detail that...you weren't... aware of? Something that has really surprised you or you didn't find anything?

Kate: Oh I have been through them and I have made notes and I passed that on to our investigation team obviously.

Sandra: And you found any evidence? Of anything?

Kate: Well obviously the only evidence I wanna find is who has taken Madeleine and where she is. They are the key things and until we actually get that bit of information you know we are always gonna feel like we are a long way away. But basically what we are doing is trying to get as much information as we can and trying to put the jig-saw, jigsaw together, so finally we have the complete picture.

Sandra: And what about your friends? Did you have a pact of silence with your friends?

Kate: (laughing) You know the judicial secrecy?

Sandra: I know it but we don't have it anymore.

Gerry: You have to put it into context of the situation that we were in...

Sandra: But now is the time to explain it...

Gerry: That, ar.. ar... article that was written in June was direct as a result of the journalist phoning all of us, and saying what can you tell us about it and we were under expressive instructions that we were not to talk about the details of the case, under judicial secrecy. So that is all that people did. And I don't think that should be considered a pact of silence. We were told, that's all. And you wouldn't expect witnesses in other cases in any country to begin divulging information that may be useful to the perpetrator of the crime

Sandra: Are you still friends? Do you plan another trips together or did it damage...?

Kate and Gerry: No No

Kate: We are still friends. We haven't got any holidays planned but we are still friends. We are in touch with each other, we still meet up and see each other.

Sandra: Don't you agree that there were a lot of details that in a certain way contribute to people to doubt of you, for example, when you went to the Vatican so quickly, all the contacts that you have made. Can I ask you Gerry, if you personally know Mr. Gordon Brown the Prime minister?

Gerry: (moving on his chair uncomfortably) No, and We've still Never Met Gordon Brown. We have spoken to him once on the phone several weeks after Madeleine was abducted. People have got to remember that, and what today is about... good ordinary people wanted to help find an innocent missing child. And that's what happened. Clearly there was a huge amount of media coverage and people wanted to Look At ways to help. Our government wanted to assist the investigation to find The missing child.



Sandra: Are they still supporting you, Mr. Gordon Brown still talks to you directly?

Gerry: We have had continued meetings with both the Home Office and also with the Foreign Office to discuss ways in which the search can continue. Obviously today is a Prime example of law enforcement LED initiative with CEOP Within conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, Interpol, Europol, and you know, the key thing is, that law enforcement believe we can get information from those who may know.




Sandra: How could you explain that Clarence Mitchell left the British Government where he was a press speaker to be your press speaker?

Gerry: Obviously, when Clarence came first out to Portugal working for the Government at that time he came out and spent I think almost three, two to three weeks with us, and he got to know us very very well, and he felt very very passionate about the search for Madeleine and when the opportunity arose, erm, you know, we asked him if he would come back and shield us from the intense media interest and that is what Clarence has done superbly well, and he has become an extremely good friend during this.

Sandra: But he must be paid.?

Gerry: He was paid, that's right

Sandra: And now he must be paid?

Gerry: yeah, but you know...

Sandra: Isn't it difficult for you to pay him?

Gerry: You know, in the first period Brian Kennedy paid his salary and then he was subsequently paid by the fund and now, you know, he works part-time on this, and he is a consultant for Freud Agency, so, you know, as the media interest dropped down, we haven't needed a full-time spokesperson. He still works with us, we are working very closely with him and he has done a brilliant job protecting us and allowing us to have some degree of normality as a family considering the very very intense media interest.

Sandra: You have also hired a new communication agency back in Portugal. Why do you think you need it and is it easy for you to afford it?

Gerry: Well again, it is an agreement that it is funded out of Madeleine's fund. It's a decision that was made by the directors of the fund, because we felt... Kate and I are both directors of the fund, there are nine directors in total, that to really make the search successful we had to present information to the Portuguese public, given how much had been written in a negative way about us, and obviously we want to work with someone who understands the Portuguese culture and the Portuguese media and how we could persuade people that Madeleine is still out there and still can be found....

Sandra: Until when do you think that you will afford all this? Two lawyers in Portugal, a news agency, Clarence Mitchell... I don't know if you still have the two lawyers that you have hired here in London?

Kate: It's not ideal, you know, Sandra. We wouldn't have any lawyers, we wouldn't need any appeal if we weren't in the situation....

Sandra: But don't you feel strangled? Don't you feel that some day you feel it will be finished the money?

Kate: We have to do whatever we can to find Madeleine and obviously we have to look at sort of , you know, if the fund starts to run out we have to try and get more money in, we can't stop...

Sandra: And how do you do it?

Gerry: Well, you know, people have been extremely kind. You have to remember that the fund was set up initially because so many people offered money to try and help and wanted to help and were prepared to donate. We would love nothing better for Madeleine to be found and for the remaining moneys in the fund to go to helping other families of missing children both in the UK and in Portugal, and that is one of our objectives when we have found Madeleine... AND her abductor, then the moneys will be used for that. Obviously if the money runs out... is running out, then we have to look at alternative ways of fundraising erm We've Done small events community events, which have been very good for teambuilding. We have had a small auction in Madeleine's school and the school where the twins are.


Sandra: Do you still have the support of Mr. Richard Branson, JK Rowling, this multimillionaire that initially gave you a lot of money?

Gerry: (burblegurgle) ..an independent investigation that has been funded completely out of Madeleine's fund... I mean an event like today, there is no specific Cost for it, and this is obviously the internet, people already have subscriptions, they can do this. There is the willingness of the population to help and I think we will find hundreds of thousands if not millions of people today will forward this link to their contacts in countries all over the world. That is cheap.

Sandra: Do you still have money in the fund?

Gerry: There is some money still in the fund and it continues to be used and we will use every single penny in that fund in the search for Madeleine.


Sandra: You have asked Goncalo Amaral to pay you 1 million euros for damage erm for the defamation for example. Do you need that money to finance the campaign?

Kate: The reason why we have taken action against Goncalo Amaral is the damage that he has done for Madeleine. That's our main focus.

Sandra: Which motives could he have to make up all this story?

Gerry: We can't speak for Goncalo Amaral.

Sandra: But I presume that you think something? Why should an investigator make it up, a story without evidence

Kate: It has to be financial gain, hasn't it?

Sandra: You think that he made this with the commercial perspective?

Kate: You would have to ask him to get the answer to this.

Sandra: So this is your idea?

Kate: It's a possibility, isn't it. I mean I have....

Sandra: You think Goncalo Amaral is trying to win money playing with your, erm your child's life?

Kate: We have to wonder why an ex-inspector of the PJ would want to convince the population that Madeleine is dead, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And that question should be asked.

Sandra: Do you feel that there is a difference of treatment between the Portuguese authorities and the British authorities? In any moment did you feel, or do you feel still, that you were victims of the Portuguese investigation?

Gerry: The key victim is Madeleine. I mean, that's what the crime is about. We know we had to be investigated. And we have been investigated.

Sandra: Sorry Gerry, but you Kate said once, that you were feeling bad with what they asked you inside the PJ, trying to get a confession from you...

Kate: I know the truth Sandra, you know what I mean, and all I want to do is find Madeleine and I was upset...

Sandra: So have you forgotten everything that already passed? It's passed for you both?

Kate: The only thing we can do now is look forward, you know, you know. There is lessons to be learned by everyone ourselves included, from what's happened. But, all we want to do is find Madeleine and the only way of doing that is by looking forwards and trying to be proactive and see what we can do now, which is why this message has gone out today.

Sandra: Did you go back to work? Are you working already?

Kate: I am working fulltime in the campaign to find Madeleine. I am looking after Sean and Amelie.

Sandra: You don't have any plans to go back to the clinic?

Kate: No I don't, no I don't

Sandra: You don't. And talking about the twins. Now the time is passing. Two years and a half since Madeleine disappeared. They are growing up. How will you be able to explain them what happened one day they have the age to really understand it?

Gerry: It's like filling in a picture for them with the information we have available and we will give them as their minds inquire, and as they are able to handle that information, then we will answer all of their questions openly and honestly.

Sandra: But what will you tell them

Gerry: Well, we will answer the questions. So what they ask us we will tell them. And we tell them exactly what happened and what information we know. And what we do know, is that we are continuing to look for their sister. They want people to look for their sister.

Sandra: But will you go into details about what happened?

Kate: We will be led by them. We have had advice from a child psychologist and they said Sean and Amelie would lead the way. If they ask a question answer them honestly. We are not gonna rush them, but if they ask something, then obviously we will answer them.

Sandra: They are in the same school where Madeleine was?

Gerry: Well she didn't get a chance to start yet so, she was there, her place is there, and the twins are there now.

Sandra: The room, Madeleine's room is still the same?

Kate: The bedroom? Yeah, it's quite a few more presents in it now, but yeah, it's still the same.

Sandra: And what do you keep telling the twins whenever they ask for her? I presume that they ask about her a lot of times?

Kate: Well they know she is missing, you know, and they know we are looking for her, and they also say things to me like, if they see things like a Madeleine sticker or a poster, they say "look Mummy they are helping to find Madeleine with us", and they might point at other people saying "Mummy are they helping us to find Madeleine?" and you know, so *shrugs*

Sandra: Is it still very hard for you or are you getting used to this reality? Are you trying to live with it?

Kate: You have to, I think, you have to adapt and you have to function. And if we want to look after Sean and Amelie, and if you want to search for Madeleine, then you have to function. Erm. I am obviously stronger than I was say a year ago, and, obviously the emotion is still there...but...*sigh*

Gerry: Well we do as much as we possibly can to ensure that the twins see us happy, and see us happy with them, and they give us a tremendous amount of joy, and our life, you know, on a day-to-day basis superficially would look like any other family with two young children. Obviously one of our children is missing. And they know that and they know that that's not good and they want her back and they understand why on occasion, you know, that we are particularly upset and... we all want Madeleine back to be a complete family again, but the twins are coping fantastically Well....

Sandra: You told me once that you are both living a nightmare. In your more optimistical perspective, what do you imagine, what do you think, it could be the best way to recover Madeleine.

Gerry: I think, the first thing today is that this message, it can be downloaded and distributed, get heard and seen by someone who knows, and it will tweak their conscience and get them to give information to bring Madeleine back.

Sandra: The last lead that you have shared with us was about a women in Barcelona. Has this anything to do with this appeal? (Kate shakes head?) Is it for that, that you are asking the relatives of people that can be involved in her disappearance, to call you?

Gerry: I think the first thing to say is that the investigation ,matters are to be dealt with by the professionals and obviously we have got David Edgar working for us or law enforcement as appropriate. Today is about this appeal. It is completely separate. It is going out in seven different languages, we want it to be spread as far and as wide as possible because we don't know where Madeleine is and we don't know who took her and that's why we need the public's help to spread the email, an email to all your contacts. I know you have already done it, Sandra.

Sandra: Thank you very much to you both.

[Acknowledgement Joana 'xklamation' Morais]

 

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LK = Lorraine Kelly
KM = Kate McCann
GM = Gerry McCann

LK: They join me now, three years. I can’t believe it’s been three years. It’s extraordinary isn’t it?

KM:  I know, it’s incredible really; it just doesn’t feel like three years to me. Sure.

GM: Mmmm. Last year in particular has gone particularly quickly.

LK: I know...I just wondered if you in anyway can have any sort of normal life three years on. Can you...does it...it...it must always, it’s just always there isn’t it, all in the forefront of your mind.

KM: I mean it is always there and obviously Madeleine’s in our life every day, but we do have, you know, periods of normality, in fact I’d say we just .. it’s just change and that’s a different kind of normality now, I mean we still  have...Gerry obviously works full time erm you know, we still have to do the cooking and washing, we’ve got Sean and Amalie and we have lots of time with them, we go on trips, they go swimming

LK So you do...you’re able to do this normal family things, you know, you have gone back to work as as you said, but there ...there’s almost this thing ...sometimes do you feel almost guilty about enjoying yourselves sometimes, you know, or laughing or having fun with the twins ... you ...is..is..do you sometimes feel like that?

KM: Yeah definitely, I think erm, sometimes you can be having a really good time, and... suddenly you realise it’s actually tinged and it will suddenly stop yer and you know, we had a lovely day last week and erm...you know it was really sunny and we can smell the grass and it’s been cut and I thought, oh it’s really nice and then it just kinda...kinda ...gets yer know...Madeleine’s still not here.

LK (talking to GM) And you’ve gone back to work, was that difficult for you? Did you sense people’s awkwardness around you or did that dissipate quite quickly?

GM:  Ye...er...it was a little bit awkward at the beginning  but at that time I think...I found it much easier when I’m mentally active when I’m doing things, both from a campaign point of view and work wise as well, erm...and...it was actually difficult when we were arguido and wasn’t so much happening, er..it’s...you felt you almost had your hands tied behind your back somewhat, so it was definitely the right decision for me to go back I went back part-time and then erm, built up and filled time and to be honest most people were just really glad to see me and most of the patients initially have been quite reserved or just left messages with er the staff.  But it was awkward in those early months when I went back and I was doing ward rounds and quite often here would be Madeleine on the front page of the newspapers or ourselves and various other things erm, so that was a little bit awkward but generally it’s not been a problem.

LK: Because sometimes people don’t really know what to say to you, you know, there’s that, that sensible {?} they’re not quite sure ... you know, they want to say how sorry they are or they’re thinking of you but they don’t quite know how to broach the subject, it’s quite difficult it’s...

KM: I think it is difficult, I think it, you know, it depends on the person really, erm, some people feel comfortable coming and asking yer how it’s going, other people are just kinda tap you on the arm and say thinking of you and other people feel they shouldn’t invade your privacy bu...

LK: Does it help when people....

KM: It does. I ..I mean, I’ve said all along really, actually makes me feel better when people acknowledge Madeleine essentially ermm...

LK: Yeah, that’s true

GM: I think it’s very important as well that er  a lot of times people want to skip around it, don’t know to mention it or not and of course we live with this everyday of our life and it’s a huge part of it and er...and...and that even applies to friends and people as well who you know, you haven’t seen for a while erm, and also we spent so much of our  our time outside particularly when the kids are in bed actually thinking about ways how we can improve the search and keep it going.

LK: Mmm...Because that’s really what this is all about and the search has to keep going on – What sort of stage is the investigation at or what sort of stage is the campaign at right now?

GM: From an investigation point of view erm, I think it’s fairly important to say that from law enforcement they’re not doing anything actively and haven’t been for a long time and that’s incredibly frustrating so we’ve had our small team working away in the background and erm, in terms of new leads I think we’ve put out most of the important information that we had this time last year, we had a very good response and most of those leads have been worked probably er as much as we can with Dave and his team. So at this point what we’re really trying to do is to get the government to review everything and it’s very difficult because a lot of information held in, in with British police there’s a lot in Portugal, it’s not all in one file whereas other information we’ve got we’re happy to make available but there hasn’t been a comprehensive review, there hasn’t been anything about which lines of enquiry er...(unintelligible)... for the investigation and that’s just something we feel is fundamental and should happen and it’s not right that an innocent , you know, vulnerable British citizen is, is essentially given up on, and I don’t think it’s right that as parents that we have to drive the search – Of course we will but yer know, not everyone has had the same resources and support that we’ve had to be able to do that and I think it’s pretty cruel.

LK: very frustrating, for, for both of you and another aspect of  it is the kind of criticism that you’ve come in for as well, erm, there’s been a lot of that and that must be very, very difficult to deal with, I mean you’ve got a lot at the start about the fact that you, you left the kids and you’d gone off and had a meal and all of that had happened and then you know, even to this day you know, there are people who are convinced are convinced that you had something to do with it, how on earth do you deal with that?

KM: I think, I mean I think it’s changed erm, certainly we don’t get the same level of criticism that we did and even then, to be fair, it was the minority really I think most people even if, you know, they don’t agree with, with, you know, what we did then they wouldn’t feel it right or fair to add to our suffering erm

LK: Because it does doesn’t it, it does add to your suffering...

KM: Absolutely and particularly in the early weeks and months, you know, I wasn’t expecting it because all I can see, you know, our daughter’s been taken and she’s been subjected to something terrifying and that’s the most important thing so for people to start you know, shouting as us when really we needed to keep the focus on Madeleine ...

LK: Of course, absolutely

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...

GM: That’s very interesting I think anyone who’s in the public eye for whatever reason gets criticised and early on when we were campaigning er you know, you would say Oh my goodness we’re getting criticised for doing this and doing that and you start to let that influence what you’re doing but then you realise you get criticised for whatever you do from some quarter

LK: Yes

GM: and what you need to do is make decisions for the right reason and do it with the best intention and really stick to yer guns, take advice but ultimately we make our own decisions but I think probably more than anything I’d say is, you know, after ... if we could turn back the clock and change what happened obviously we wouldn’t have done it, we can’t and what I would  say is you know, people have got to put themselves  into your positions. What would you do if it was your daughter? Afterwards what would you do? {{The following was a bit confusing because Lorraine Kelly kept talking over what Gerry McCann was saying}} LK: You’d move heaven and earth (GM: Yeah so that’s what...)  and you’d do everything you possibly could, everything you possible could (GM: that’s what we’re trying to do ) just what you’re doing of course (GM: as much as possible)  yeah

GM...and er, er, trying to er think of ....just constantly ways where we could improve things or, or get additional things done.

LK: You did this pack (holds up a holiday pack of Madeleine) that is specifically aimed at people going on holiday anywhere, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t have to be Portugal it can be absolutely anywhere and in the pack there’s posters people can put up, there’s a stickers, there’s bookmarks, there’s all of this so again this is about you being pro active and you try to do as much as you can. They can get this on your website can’t they?

GM: yeah

KM: yeah

LK: Yeah, so they can get a hold of that and hopefully that’s again just going to keep everything in the public eye, that’s what you want to do, keep her name there

GM: It comes...er...a lot of what we’ve done is er, taking advice from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington and it’s very much about keeping her image out there, that’s really important Madeleine so there’s an age progression photograph there which was released last year, just other things, car stickers and it’s simple things, who knows who will end up seeing her er, but if you don’t have her image out there then it’s less likely.

LK: Yooouuu...er...like I say, is very, very, very, very, difficult for both of you, it’s been absolutely horrendous...you’ve, you’ve stayed at home haven’t you Kate, you’ve stayed at home looking after the twins. How much do the twins know? How much are they aware of because they’re five now

KM:  Er, they know quite a lot, we’ve kind of...it’s changed a little bit initially for them they’d say where’s Madeleine, Madeleine’s lost...erm...then as they got older and started to ask more questions then obviously the picture’s unfolded a little bit for them and basically, I think it was last year wasn’t it (glances at Gerry) erm, Amalie said to me you know, has Madeleine run away mummy? And erm, she kept asking me in a public place (LK: Awww) so it was a bit tricky at first, and she said: because it’s not nice to run away. And that, that really upset me because I thought because I didn’t want her to think that Madeleine’s at fault here, so probably (glances at GM) about the third time she asked me, when we were at home rather than in a supermarket, erm, we just explained really that someone had taken Madeleine but we tried to obviously make them understand it in as gentler way as possible so... (LK:  you don’t want to frighten them do you, you don’t want to make them scared) ...so it was a little bit like you know, stealing really, (LK: right) so we said, just because you really want something or you really like something, if it belongs to somebody else you shouldn’t take it, so that’s how they understand it, so that they know somebody’s taken her and they actually, they know it’s wrong you know.

LK: Can you still, do you still have a, I mean  three years is a long time, you’ve still got her image in your head, can you still hear her?

KM: Yeah, I mean obviously the image we have of is, you know, the Madeleine that we knew, so Madeleine at four days...you know...four years minus nine days, erm (glances at Gerry) and I can still hear her voice and obviously we have video film (LK: of course) of her and you know, every so many months we sit down and we’ll watch that really and ...

LK: Oh that must be...en...(unintelligible)... someone’s comfort thing and (unintelligible) very, very difficult to do that.

GM: Sean and Amalie like watching the stuff of us and they’ve watched old video’s of us and they’ve put it all together now you know...the temporal sequence of events and they know about, they went to Portugal, they went to bed and Madeleine was taken and just to expand a bit on what Kate says they know, they believe that, you know, it, it was a man that took her and it’s a naughty man and we need to try and find him so it’s part of what they say that mummy’s working er to help find Madeleine

KM:  Er Sean said to us his little friend in school, she said, she said: Kate you a doctor? And Sean just came in and said: mummy was a doctor but her doc..er...job now is to find Madeleine, you know, kind of, erm, he was just straight, and er, so they understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and they understand that we’ve got a lot of support, you know, they’ll constantly spot things like a car sticker or a luggage tag or a wristband and they’ll point it out and you know, say look they’re helping mum too ....so...

LK: Are you convinced she’s still out there somewhere?

KM: Certainly, in my heart I feel she’s out there and there’s, there’s...I mean I know there’s nothing to say that she isn’t and so we have to carry on working and thinking like that, I mean logically, you know, I mean, I can’t say, none of us can say for definite other than the people involved, but erm, I know we can’t give up because there’s no evidence to say she’s not so.....

LK: that’s what I was going to say to you. Do you think there’ll ever be a time when you say enough is enough, we’ve done all we can,  there’s no more we can do.

KM: We can’t. I mean if they haven’t found Madeleine, if we don’t know what’s happened, you haven’t done enough, I mean there’s obviously more that can be done and it might just be time, you know, it might just be, you know, there could be a group of people out there who are sitting with this on their conscien...you know ... with this on their conscience and every time Madeleine is mentioned or every time there’s an image, again it’s just pricking their conscience and it might just be, you know, as I say, a question of time until they come forward, the situation might change and they may then feel comfortable to come forward so...just keep going...

GM: As hard as it is there are lots of examples, particularly from the States, of children who have been abducted at a younger age and kept for a long time. I think the key thing is you (shouldn’t that be ‘we’?) don’t know who’s taken her and what the motive is and until we find that person, it’s very hard but, you’ve just gotta keep going and keep working away but more importantly we need to have a proper review of all the information, that’s how we’ll move the investigation forward  and at the end of the day, the person that’s taken Madeleine is still out there they’re er, a potential danger to other children so they need to be brought to justice.

KM: We do this, you know, in medicine, you know, if there’s a case you don’t seem to be getting a diagnoses someone will come in and review it, they’ll go back to square one, they’ll go through all the information or the data or the results that you’ve got and work through it and that’s when you find out what else needs to be done and it will help point you in the right direction so ...

LK: And its...will be her birthday soon. What will you do that day?

KM: I was just explaining to someone before, her birthday is actually a much more difficult day for us than, you know, the 3rd of May. The 3rd of May really is just, it’s another day without Madeleine erm but the 12th is obviously a day when we should be celebrating Madeleine, celebrating with Madeleine erm, I mean, last year we had a little tea party, we had close family and Madeleine’s friends round, erm and I guess we’ll probably do something similar. It’s a little bit different this year because Sean and Amalie are in school but after school we can have a little tea party or something

LK: Thank you both for coming in and talking to us. Erm, like, you know, like everyone else I just hope for a happy ending one day. Thank you very much indeed and we’ll be thinking of you. Thank you so much.



[Acknowledgement:  pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Gerry McCann speaks at IBA Annual Conference, Madrid - 9th November 2009

Gerry McCann, father of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, was the keynote speaker at an IBA Annual Conference session of the Media Law Committee. He spoke about his relationship with the media and media law over the past two years.

Other high profile speakers at the session included Herman Croux, Roger Mann, Julian Porter, Kelli Sager, Paul Tweed and Adam Tudor.
The session was chaired by Mark Stephens and Nigel Tait.

Nigel Tait, session co-chair: I’m delighted to introduce our panel of speakers to you, all of whom are acknowledged experts in the field of media law. First we have Herman Croux from Brussels in Belgium. Herman has acted as an adviser to the Belgian Government on constitutional and judicial reform and was an assistant professor at the University of Lervin. Herman is a regular speaker at international conferences and is chair of the Copyright and Entertainment Law Committee of the IBA. He has been involved in many notable cases including the constitutionality of The Protection of Journalists’ Sources Act before the Constitutional Court.

Then we have Doctor Roger Mann from Hamburg in Germany. Roger is a specialist in defamation litigation and acts for national magazine and newspaper publishers as well as for politicians and chief executive officers. Recently he’s acted for the Quant family and Susan Clatton, who are the main shareholders in BMW, over reports about an attempted blackmail.

From Toronto in Canada, I’m pleased to introduce Julian Porter QC who was called to the bar in 1964 and has practised litigation ever since. Julian has defended many of Canada’s leading writers, publishers and magazines and has acted for a large number of plaintiffs, suing newspapers and television stations. Julian has also produced two excellent conference papers which can be found on the IBA in Madrid conference website; one on the libel case brought by Richard Desmond against Tom Bauer and one dwelling on the deadpan humour of a British judge in the privacy case of Max Mosley against the News of the World.

Our next panellist is Kelli Sager from Los Angeles in California. Kelli is one of the only two lawyers in the United States to have been given the prestigious star ranking by the Chambers USA guide in the field of first amendment law and she represents the whole spectrum of media defendants including claims for libel, breach of privacy, reporters’ shield laws and internet law.

Next from Belfast and Dublin we have Paul Tweed. Paul has practised as a media lawyer for over 30 years and is well known in the United Kingdom for acting for high profile Hollywood personalities such as Britney Spears and Harrison Ford, who on one view instructed Paul to clear their names of false allegations, well, but on another view represent libel tourists who exploit claimant friendly UK libel laws. But one sure way of telling that Paul is an accomplished lawyer is the fact that he also represents the selfsame journalists and newspapers that he has sued on behalf of claimants, but not at the same time!

Also joining us today is Adam Tudor who successfully represented our key note speaker today, Gerry McCann, against the British press, and who can tell and talk about legal aspects of the case. My co-chairman today is one of the most well known lawyers in the United Kingdom. When I suggested to The Times newspaper that they write an article on what has happened to all the great characters in the British legal profession, we struggle to think of anyone other than Mark Stephens who could lay claim to such a title. Mark is a highly experienced lawyer, having won the case of Jameel and the Wall Street Journal, Europe, in the House of Lords for the defendant; a case on responsible journalism which most, if not all of us who practise in this area in the law, thought was a sure-fire winner for the claimant, but Mark nevertheless won for the defendant.

Our keynote speaker today is Mr Gerry McCann whose daughter, Madeleine, so tragically disappeared from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. Four months later, Madeleine’s parents were named as arguidos or persons of interest by the Portuguese police, sending the British media, in particular, into a frenzy of wild speculation and such speculation continued even beyond 21 July, 2008 when the Portuguese police lifted the McCann’s arguidos status and confirmed that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

We so often hear, and rightly so, about the importance of a free press and our friends in the United States jealously guard the First Amendment protection given to the press and to their citizens, but seldom do we hear from those caught in the spotlight of publicity and I’m extremely grateful to Mr McCann for agreeing to be our keynote speaker today. Mr McCann will stay for questions but now I would like him to tell you his story. Thank you very much.

Gerry McCann: Thank you, Nigel, and I’m very glad to see that the title says I’m the keynote speaker because this certainly isn’t a lecture. I don’t have any specific knowledge of the law in the United Kingdom and any other jurisdiction although I’ve had more than a lifetime’s worth of dealing with lawyers over the last two and a half years. So I’m very much speaking regarding our own personal experience of the trauma that we’ve been caught up in.

I think Nigel’s already pointed out some of the main facts. We were on holiday on the 3 May 2007 when Madeleine was abducted from the apartment we were sleeping in. The world media really had descended on Praia de Luz within 24 hours and generally during those first two to three, four months or so, it was incredibly supportive and I’ll touch on that in some detail. Towards the end of August, in particular around the time when we were declared arguidos, then we had some of the most vile media reporting probably, certainly in the history of British journalism. And in 2008 we had several libel claims for defamation, and invasion of privacy. Later that year, as Nigel says, the file was closed and the Portuguese judiciary concluded that there is no evidence to support any of the allegations against us and we have continued and ongoing action within Portugal, which I’m not going to speak of very much because it’s still in the judicial process.

This is a brief outline of the talk, and I’ll probably speak for about 20 minutes. I want to first of all talk about decisions and whether to interact with the media or not. It’s not compulsory. I’ll talk about a strategy which we tried to employ. We’ll show some of the supportive press coverage and I will show you some of the front page headlines which caused us to take action and the results of that legal redress. And I’ll conclude with just a few minutes really about some thoughts and our experiences and recommendations or suggestions which is up to the legal profession and the judiciary whether they act on of course.

Interacting with the media

The first thing to say is that you know, it’s not compulsory; I think most people feel that when they’re caught up in a trauma, that they should interact with the media. Any parent in this audience will understand the complete devastation that we felt when we discovered Madeleine was gone, and particularly within the first few hours when the search around the vicinity of Praia de Luz found no trace of her, and we felt completely devastated. And in the early hours of the morning we phoned family and close friends to tell them of what happened. And I think the feeling of helplessness that Kate and I had was magnified by the distance of our loved ones and what they felt, that they couldn’t do anything for us. And actually several people independently contacted the media to tell them what had happened and in fact a very close friend was already distributing photographs of Madeleine to all the major news outlets in the early hours of the morning, which we didn’t know.

One thing we were discussing last night over dinner; it was interesting that the only news organisation that actually refused to publish the photograph was the BBC who came back saying ‘how do we know this is true, and who are you to distribute the photograph?’ Every other news outlet took it straight away and by the early hours of the morning it was already on our breakfast television in the UK. By the time Kate and I returned from the police station about 9 o’clock at night, there were approximately 200 journalists in Praia de Luz.

I can’t say for certain what factors were influencing this intense media interest within 24 hours of her abduction. I think the fact that it was a foreign child abducted on holiday certainly played a key part. The only other case we can think of in the United Kingdom was of Ben Needham, who was abducted in 1991 on a Greek island. And we don’t know of any other cases involving British children taken whilst on holiday, so that certainly played a part. The fact that we were doctors seemed to influence things and that this had happened to professional couple and I think Madeleine’s picture herself that she was such a beautiful innocent young girl who was taken and clearly many of the journalists involved felt a great deal of empathy with us as well.

Clearly the holiday company saw this media needed to be managed and engaged Bell Pottinger straight away and they sent out their head of crisis management, Alex Woolfall, to deal with the media. They also provided to us trauma counselling, which was very, very important in how we dealt with the situation. And we had counselling sessions within 36 hours of this happening and I have to say it played a tremendous part in helping me cope with the situation and try to do things to influence the outcome. I’d like to play a video, if we can get this.

Video: ‘One cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter, Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine’s disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their investigation. Thank you.’

Gerry McCann: That video’s from about 9.30 pm on the 4th of May and I wanted to show it because I think even at that stage when I saw the media it filled me with dread about the potential intrusion of privacy, but I also saw it as an opportunity of helping the search, and the salient point, I haven’t seen that video for at least 18 months, and it brought back to me, the salient points of which we were trying to achieve; to get information into the investigation, which we still strive to do, as Madeleine is still missing, secondly, to let as many people as possible, know that Madeleine is missing, and thirdly, even though in that first night we were already concerned about intrusion of privacy, and I think I’ll show you in the following slides that we had very good reasons to be concerned.

So the primary objectives were to get the best possible investigation so when I put the slide up showing that we were talking about the campaign strategy, much of it was not media related, and so we had very early contact with the UK foreign office and other government officials striving to get the best possible investigation. We had to look at getting information into the enquiry and after the first few days when Madeleine was not discovered in the vicinity of the Algarve, then we had to think okay, where could she have been taken, and that influenced the decisions in which countries to visit and try and target so Spain’s a neighbouring country to Portugal, so one of the first things that we did was we got a message to David Beckham, asking him to do an appeal. He was playing for Real Madrid in this very city at the time and he agreed to that and did a very emotional appeal. And that had an amazing effect on the overall campaign because he was such a worldwide superstar and it seemed to have a snowball effect.

We took advice from the crisis management team and Alex Woolfall was absolutely brilliant. What he said to us was that for any media that you do, you must clearly define what your objective is from doing the media and secondly, ask yourself the question, how is it going to help, and that helped us tremendously with our future press conferences, statements and photo calls. We also did a number of TV and magazine interviews, I have to say, mainly at the request of the media, and that is one of the times where Alex would say you’re just feeding the beast. We subsequently had a public audience with the Pope and we had visits to Spain appealing for information and help and also we went to Germany and the Netherlands who make up the largest group of tourists to the Algarve, after the British and Irish, and we also visited Morocco which is obviously not far across the Mediterranean.

This early media coverage was generally very, very supportive. The largest weekly newspaper in the United Kingdom, the News of the World, had got a number of celebrities to agree to contribute to an award and £1.5 million was pledged. Additionally we had a businessman from Scotland who pledged another £1 million. There was, without doubt, unprecedented public interaction.

There were a huge amount of posters put up all over the United Kingdom and further afield and generally there was a focus on trying to find Madeleine and/or her abductors. The poster in the middle was released with JK Rowling’s last Harry Potter book and at the time, particularly in those first few weeks, I would say that the normal media rivalry between different organisations was put to one side and there was a real feeling that people would not let such tragic crimes happen again and that we really were going to make a difference and try and find Madeleine.

I think, I don’t expect you to read all of this, but this was an editorial in a larger selling daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, The Sun, which was printed the day after we did our first TV interviews which was more than three weeks after Madeleine was abducted and I would just like to point out the very bottom line and it says The Sun is proud, with other newspapers, to play our part in their hunt, meaning Kate and I’s hunt, for Madeleine and that summed up the general feeling at the time.

However, we even early on, realised there were a number of drawbacks of having such intense media coverage. There was a voracious, almost insatiable appetite for new stories in relation to Madeleine and actually the media were generally operating in a vacuum because of Portugal’s judicial secrecy laws and that the police weren’t allowed to speak directly to the media. We didn’t want to give too much information regarding exactly what happened and the timeline, for two reasons; one, fear of breaking the judicial law and secondly, we didn’t want the abductor to know information or put it in the public domain that only that other person could know.

Within weeks we already saw that there was a focus in the media coverage. There was a switching of attention away from Madeleine and it started to become the Kate and Gerry show. There was intense pressure to do media, which I have to say would have been for media sake, which we tried to resist. And it also became clear to us that Madeleine stories were selling newspapers and that there had to be a Madeleine story and she was becoming a commodity and people were starting to forget that she was a real child.

In June 2007, after we completed our visit, we tried to signal a change in our strategy. We appointed a campaign manager and her role was not directly a spokesperson. We anticipated that the media interest would naturally dwindle and the role was really about ensuring that we could maintain a search in the long term. We also signalled that Kate and I would not be making regular press statements or conferences and we asked the media to no longer photograph our two-year-old twins. We hadn’t asked for that immediately, primarily because I just didn’t think it was enforceable, given the huge amount of media attention and particularly in another country. We might have managed it in the UK but even I doubt it there.

Towards the end of August and September 2007 there was really quite a dramatic change in the media coverage. We were declared arguidos, which the closest thing in UK law is a person of interest and what that allows you to do is have a lawyer present during interviews. And it means that the police have to ask you questions in which your answers may incriminate yourself and as witnesses you’re not allowed to have a lawyer present and you must answer all questions. So being given the status of arguidos is actually to protect your own legal interest, and whereas that was just translated as suspects, and very much led to a number of damaging headlines.

There were multiple headlines that accused us either of directly killing Madeleine or being involved in disposing of her body and you can imagine how distressing this was when we were trying to ensure that there was an active and ongoing search and clearly we felt if people believed these stories, particularly in Portugal and further afield, then there could be no search, if people believed Madeleine was dead.

I’m just going to spend a minute or two showing you some of the front page headlines that were printed in the United Kingdom press. I would also like to point out that Amelie, who’s being carried by Kate here’s face is not pixelated so suddenly as we were declared arguidos it was okay to have our children’s photographs published on front page of newspaper again with millions of circulation, put on the internet: the multiple references to DNA in the cars, hair.

So when we came back to United Kingdom we felt that we had to do that to protect ourselves from the intrusion. We did try and combat these negative stories and really we had a trial by media at this point. The criminal lawyers who were appointed to defend us had multiple visits to the editors of all the national newspapers along with our spokesperson. And I can tell you that they assured the editors that there was not a shred of evidence to back up these wild allegations. There was a letter from the chief constable of Leicestershire police who was leading the investigation from the United Kingdom end, urging restraint in the coverage and emphasising that many of the stories that were published, had no grain of truth to them.

We also had further discussions with the Press Complaints Commission about how we may stop such coverage but despite these actions, the front page headlines continued and the previous ones all happened within a week of us coming back from Portugal. These ones are later. We are now into October and DNA reference once again; further ones in October. Now into the end of November and getting increasingly bizarre and ultimately in the space of five days, there were three front page headlines in January of 2008, that were regurgitating the same stories and for us, we come to breaking point. And at that point, although we’d had discussions earlier with Carter Ruck and Adam Tudor who’s here today, we felt enough is enough and we agreed to issue complaint letters against the worst offender and we also got an agreement from Carter Ruck that if the case did go to court, then they would represent us on a conditional fee arrangement, which was very important to our decision to press the button. The letters of complaint requested the removal of online versions of the articles, full apologies and we asked for damages and of course costs.

After an initial short wrangle, the newspapers did not defend these complaints and they did not argue for defence of truth of responsible journalism, which we were advised would have stood very little chance in a court of law. The complaints were settled out of court to our satisfaction and I have to say that we had unprecedented front page apologies and additionally a statement was read out in front of the judge in the London’s High Court.

A total of £550,000 paid in damages by one publisher alone, which was at our request, paid directly into Madeleine’s fund. This is the fund that we set up to help the search and we were told that the sum reflected the amount of damages the distress would have caused us. And there were certainly discussions that if this had gone to court, we could have argued for exemplary damages and to be honest the QC whose counsel we took, suggested that the damages we could have got would have been much, much higher than what we accepted but the most important thing for us was to get this out and to stop the coverage. And that was a main motivation for doing it. Additionally the seven friends who were on holiday with us, who had many similar allegations of being involved in a cover-up, were awarded £375,000 which they agreed also to pay into Madeleine’s fund, and we had a further small settlement with one other publisher.

Without a doubt there was an effect of these successful complaints. There was massive TV coverage and in some of the news channels it was the main news item that day. Although there was lots of press present at the High Court reading, there was rather less coverage in the newspapers, which is not surprising. Subsequent to that, I would have to say there was a dramatic effect with much more cautious and responsible reporting. And one of our concerns was obviously whether we would have burned our bridges with the media and we would no longer get co-operation when we wanted them to put information out but that has not been the case. There is still tremendous amount of appetite when we helped the media to help us get messages to the general public.

We mentioned invasion of privacy and clearly we couldn’t stop being photographed. On the very first night, the tour operators asked us if we wanted to go to a villa and I said I felt that would be worse. We’d be completely hemmed in with all the media at the end of a drive and we did stay in a holiday complex and it did allow us to move around. However when we returned home, we had news journalists and paparazzi at the end of our drive for several months, ramming cameras into the car, including when the twins were in it.

Even early on there seemed to be a complete blurring of what would be considered our public persona, doing things that related to Madeleine, and what was private so we were followed around, followed on the beach. The children were being followed and photographed, and even when we tried to get away from it all, there were surreptitious journalists trying to obtain photographs on us on our first holiday without Madeleine and they did manage to find us at the airport when we were returning home.

The Press Complaints Commission in the UK generally have been helpful in enforcing protecting the privacy of our children and that’s something that I’m not sure exists in other countries as well. The greatest violation of our invasion of privacy was the publication of Kate’s, translation of Kate’s journal, which was seized during the initial police investigation. And actually there is a judge’s order in the Portuguese file which ordered the destruction of all copies of the journal as being of no interest to the investigation. And this article, front page, with several pages, word for word of the journal was published inside, was done without our consent, and we very rapidly complained. That journal was written for Madeleine and for our other children and I cannot tell you how distressing it was for Kate to be told that it had been published. That complaint was settled, I have to say quickly, with the publishers who had been supportive up to that point generally.

I’d just like to finish with a few thoughts: If I was asked to go back and would I have interacted with the media in the same way then the answer would have been almost completely yes. We did it with the best intentions. Our hope was to get the best possible search and in fact we will continue to interact with the media if it’s appropriate. With hindsight, I would have made a clearer boundary and withdrawn from allowing the media to photograph us doing anything that was not Madeleine related in public. And again with hindsight, although we were absolutely certain when it came to it, that we were ready to take action, with hindsight we should have taken action earlier, against the newspapers in the UK for publishing these stories.

These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.

So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kate (McCann) speaks publicly for the first time outside the church

Sunday 6th May 2007 - Mother's Day Service

This is the transcript from BBC 6 May 2007

Under cloudless skies the villagers of Luz came to pray for a family they have taken to their hearts. Today is Mothering Sunday in Portugal, a day when daughters bring flowers for their mothers, Kate and Gerry McCann joined the congregation to seek strength and to join those prayers.

Mrs McCann clasping the soft toy that is her daughter's favourite. The village priests have spent many hours with the McCanns they prayed not only for Madeleine but also for those working day and night to find her. So many people have been touched by the McCanns anguish, their support means a great deal to a family clinging to hope.



Kate - Gerry and I would just like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to everybody particularly the local community here who have offered so much support, I couldn't ask for more, I just want to say thank you, please continue to pray for Madeleine, she's lovely.



Gerry - from today's service the thing we are going to take from this is strength and courage and hope

Robert Hall: Publically at least the Police have said nothing to fuel that hope and across the search area we saw only limited activity. I've been driving now for the greater part of two hours in an area that extends four to five miles out of Luz, I have seen isolated Police units but as yet no sign of a concentrated search. Perhaps it is this face that will help provide fresh leads, the last picture of Madeleine on what should have been a perfect holiday. Robert Hall BBC News Portugal

The mother of three year old Madeleine McCann wept and prayed for her missing daughter at an emotional mother's day service in the Portuguese resort Prai da Luz. After mass Kate and Gerry McCann made these emotional statements.

Kate - Gerry and I would just like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to everybody particularly the local community here who have offered so much support, I couldn't ask for more, I just want to say thank you, please continue to pray for Madeleine, she's lovely.

Gerry - from today's service the thing we are going to take from this is strength and courage and hope and we continue to hope for the best possible outcome from this for us and for Madeleine. Thank you.

The search continues for Madeleine three days after her apparent abduction from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve. The McCann's had put her to bed and were dining 50 metres away when she was seized. Portuguese police say they have a suspect and believe Madeleine is alive.

[Acknowledgement pamalam of gerrymccannsblogs]

Interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann 3rd November 2010

CHANNEL 4 INTERVIEW with the McCanns

Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.

Gerry McCann I think the first thing to tell the general public is that the authorities haven't been doing anything proactive in the search for Madeleine for well over two years now and we think it is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to look at all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the enquiry.

DS You say that they have been doing nothing proactive. What have they been doing for the last two and a half years' People might be surprised to hear that.

GM Well'

Kate McCann Well I think if information comes in, certainly to the British authorities, if they are able to they will have a look at it and if they feel its necessary they will send it over to Portugal. But they are actually waiting for information to come in rather than trying to bring information in that could find her.

DS Do you think it makes it difficult for them, though, because you have got your own private investigators looking for your daughter' Does that make your relationship with the police difficult'

GM It shouldn't. I mean its not competition. They should be working together if anything. The fact if there wasn't private investigators there would be absolutely no-one looking for this so I don't see why' Its not a threat. We don't have the resources. They don't have statutory powers. There's a lot more the authorities can do. We do have people, though, on the end of a phone line, looking at emails, interviewing witnesses and generally following up new lines of enquiry and they've passed a number of those on to the authorities. But, you know, this is an unsolved serious case and particularly given the profile we think that a full case review should be undertaken and that has to be collaborative with the Portuguese authorities.

DS Leicestershire Police have said to us that they haven't shelved the investigation because it was never their investigation to shelve because it was being led by the Portuguese. What more would you expect Leicestershire Police to do'

KM I mean I think it is important to say although Portugal has primacy with regards to the investigation it doesn't mean that there isn't things the British authorities can do. And certainly a review is one of the crucial, significant things that they can take part in.

GM I mean I think what we are asking for today is for the governments to do more. Leicestershire have, you know, largely played their part and they have done that to the best of their ability. But this needs to be done at higher level. It needs to be done between the governments and there has to be an agreement and err' parameters set in terms of the review, how it is going to be done and what it leads to. And the last Home Secretary, Alan Johnston, ordered a scoping exercise that was undertaken by CEOP and as far as we can see, after six months nothing has been done with that scoping exercise and we just don't think that's acceptable.

DS So the previous Home Secretary looked into the feasibility of having a review. Has there been a change in the attitude of the new government now that we have a change of government.

GM Well it is difficult to know because we are not getting any metrics to measure what the government are doing against so there's no time lines, there's no deliverables and time's just ticking on. We were told that we would be told the contents of that report. We haven't seen it. We haven't been told. And really although the government say there are sensitivities, we fully understand that but they should be doing more and they are, should be responsible for ensuring that Madeleine gets the best investigation possible.

KM We are not aware of any progress since the CEOP report was handed in to the government at the end of March. And even allowing for a change of government in the last six months we're not aware of anything that has carried on from that report being given in.

DS When you met with Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, what promises did she give you' Did she tell you what was in that scoping report'

KM Well, I think that's just it. There weren't any promises. In fact she said, 'I don't want to make any commitments'. But, basically, what we need to know is what are they doing, what are they going to do with that report, have they read the report'

DS Do you think she had even read it'

KM Well she hadn't when we met her. She said that which was a bit disappointing. Hopefully now she has but we need to know where are we going now because we truly believe its going to help the search for Madeleine. We know its not easy but it doesn't mean its not possible.

DS I just wanted to ask you. You've chosen to do the interviews now three and a half years on. People will be wondering how on earth you keep going and how you keep this story in the news after such a long time.

GM Well we don't '(Slight laugh') Although we offered to do things like this really I think it is a reflection that the public are very interested and'

KM I think the public care about Madeleine and that's why its still a story for want of a better word. Which is great because without the public support I don't know where we'd be, erm'

GM I think that's crucial, you know. The government won't do anything without pressure and its the public. The government are accountable to the public who elected them and that's what we're asking for is the public to ask our government to do more and to work with the Portuguese government as well and we should be putting pressure on both of them to solve this. We can't stop doing what we do. We need to find Madeleine. We are living a life that's somewhat in limbo between our previous life which was very, very happy and somewhere now where we've got a different life but without Madeleine in it. And we can't really get off that treadmill until we find her or at the very least what's happened to her.

DS And how do you keep going' How do you keep hoping' There must be days when it is very, very difficult.

KM Well we've worked so hard. I mean, understandably, we're Madeleine's parents and we are going to do everything that we can and we work really hard. And there are days when it feels that obstacle after obstacle is thrown in your way and obviously the clock keeps ticking, the calendar keeps turning. And there's days that we just look at each other and think 'God I wish it was all over', you know erm. But basically we wish Madeleine was back with us. Full stop.

GM You know, '

KM You know, but we can't stop while we are in this situation we just have to keep going. It doesn't matter how tiring it is. It doesn't matter how many blocks are put in our way. We have to keep going because a little girl is still out there missing. You know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there, there's a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him. You know, so that's another reason why the governments and the authorities should be doing more.

GM I was just going to say one of the simplest things is Sean and Amelie's attitude because they talk about Madeleine all the time and when we are having one of those days when you just want to opt to go away and you are exhausted and they just say, 'When Madeleine comes home' and there's no reason why she can't come home that we know of and its happened for other children and they know how hard we are working and they want Madeleine home as well and that really does give us renewed energy and vigour to carry on what we are doing.

KM In Sean and Amelie's words, 'Madeleine's missing. We need to find her.' And its quite simple when you put it like that, you know.

DS So you still believe that your daughter is alive and out there somewhere'

KM Certainly, we know there's a good chance that she's still alive. I mean at the minute she's just missing, you know. I mean, so you have to assume she's alive cos there's nothing to say otherwise. There's many cases, as you know, that have hit the media of children and many cases that haven't hit the media of children who've been found years down the line so you just have to keep going.

GM I mean you could imagine if we just gave up and years down the line we found her. There's no justification for giving up.

DS And so you will keep on searching for as long as it takes.

GM Yeah. And we can't stop. I don't think any parent could stop.

KM I don't think you could live comfortably. I just don't think physically that you could, or mentally you could actually reach that decision, you know.

DS When you mentioned the public support and how important it is to you. How do you feel about the fact that there are still people who feel that you had something to do with it and there are web sites set up to (''''''''')' It must be quite hurtful still after all this time.
GM I think the key thing is that the motives of people who wish to persuade others that Madeleine is dead without any evidence to suggest that have to be questioned. You know, we are here to try and make sure that there is as good a search as possible and that's as far as I can see the way the vast majority of the public want to see it happening. And I think they'll be shocked to find that the authorities have not been doing anything. Our focus is in making sure there is a good search not stopping one for a missing child

CHANNEL 4 INTERVIEW with the McCanns (Part 2 of 2

Link to full article UTV-03-11-10



DS So are you still quite hurt by some of the things you read'

KM Well a lot of the rubbish I don't read, to be honest. Because, as Gerry said, you have to question the motives of people like that. People who want to insist on something without evidence. People who want to bring, you know, more pain and suffering to a family who are already vulnerable, who are already suffering. You really have to question those people and I don't value their opinion because, you know, I wouldn't behave like that so, you know, you can't be, you know, detracted, distracted from what is important which is Madeleine by people like that. The majority of people are good people. They're the quiet majority and I strongly believe they are the ones who want to find Madeleine.

DS And you are appealing for more funds. What happened to the money that you had previously' There's around, I understand, '350,000 left. What happened to the previous money that was donated'

GM OK. I think the first thing to say is that the priority today is very much about asking the public to help us with the petition to get the government to do more. We have been fortunate, although its not helped us get where we want, by having a fund. And the fund was set up in response to people offering money and it was set up properly and the fund is very accountable and it has independent auditors and we have a fund administrator who's got lots of experience. The vast amount of. The vast majority of the money in the fund has been spent directly on search fees. Its obviously supported other things, awareness campaigns, we have a part-time co-ordinator now. We have media liaison to deal with things like this here and in Portugal in trying to get our messages across, but the most of the money, the vast majority of it has been spent'

KM we've had to fund an investigation for two years now which as you can imagine with several more than that personnel, it costs money'

GM Staff, expenses, interviewing. We run a 24hr help line which is available. We run a web site. That costs money, updating it. Communications. You know, all of these things do add up and without having the fund there wouldn't be a meaningful search today.

DS You've also spent money on your own investigators as you've said. There have been reports that some of these detectives have taken money but then not delivered. They are dodgy detectives if you like. How can you reassure people that money won't be spent on people like that in the future.

GM Well we've very much had for the last two and a bit years, we've had Dave Edgar who is a very experienced detective who was near retirement. He's been working with us. He's very much accountable for the spend. He feels he can justify every penny. But at the same time I hope the public realise as well as directors of the fund in particular when we were arguido and there was no search going on that it was incumbent upon us to continue a search in very, very difficult circumstances. So we have made decisions along the way which have always, we felt, been in the best interest of the search to find Madeleine and we are very accountable. All the expenses are there err, receipts and we've got quite a tight-knit team working on this but we need them. Without it there would be no-one there to go and interview people and follow up leads.

DS What about the, some people might say, the judgement of the trustees is sometimes questionable because you have had people like Halligen who is now facing extradition'

GM Well, you know, we are doing the best in very, very difficult circumstances. I think that's key. We always take advice, due diligence is done, references are sought and, you know, the fund is accountable and as directors we are responsible for making those decisions.

DS There are also reports that you have fallen out with some of the trustees, with your brother and your boss who have resigned'

GM That's nonsense. That's absolute nonsense. Why do you say we have fallen out' I mean the fund has changed over three years, three and a half years. Its very different, ermm, initially we weren't on the board because we were based in Portugal'

KM Nobody thought, you know, three and a half years ago that we would be in this situation today. Its a big commitment, you know, and things have changed. We've got different phases in the last three and a half years so inevitably there's going to be changes.

DS So its not that you've had differences over the way the money was spent or''

GM No, not at all.

KM Absolutely not.

GM In fact any of the changes we have made recently are to make the fund more efficient and more responsive. Kate and I always feel, you know, there's still an urgency. It doesn't get easier and we don't need a large board as such. We are trying to run the fund like a small business in many ways so that its focused and the directors by and large are hands on and responsible for certain areas. Kate and I are integral to all the parts of it. We've got legal advice. We've got specialist media liaison etc. We've got a retired accountant, and, you know we've got Kate's uncle who is there and is a good governance sort of person. So all of these are taken on board and we've got a very experienced fund administrator as well.

KM Have you talked about the petition'

DS Yeah, I was just going to ask you about that. So, I mean, you have mentioned the petition already. Just how many signatures are you hoping to collect' What are you asking people to sign for' What is the point of the petition'

GM Well the whole point is to call on the governments, both the UK and the Portuguese government to do more in the search for Madeleine and the first thing we feel that's fundamental is that they undertake a complete review of the case preferably it should be independent and we want transparency as well and we are asking the public to help us in that regard.

DS In terms of, you only have '350,000 left now, how can you, how long do you worry that you can keep going (if you dont get donations'''')'

GM Well we are always as directors of the fund, we are always looking at that because one of.., the remit is for us to fulfil the objectives of the fund and the fund is to try and find Madeleine and bring those responsible to justice so there's always an agenda item about finances and we need to look at that. We've done other fund raisers in the past and we'll keep looking at that. We've been very fortunate from the point of view of having so many of the public make donations and a large part of the money we've spent, as you know, has come from libel damages which were paid into the fund. So we'll continue to explore it. We certainly need to be looking at income generation over the next months.

DS There must be huge pressure on you knowing you've always got to look ('''''''').

GM Well, I mean, we'd love nothing more to find Madeleine. And then we wouldn't have to worry about that. You're absolutely right. Our focus is on the search for Madeleine and without the authorities conducting that then the onus is on us and we don't think that's right. The onus should be on the governments to do more. We'd love to give that pressure away. You're right.

DS And you mention the money from the trials. How do you feel now that Amaral's book is going to be on the shelves here'

GM Yeah, so. Well, you know, we've already alluded to it. Anyone who wants to convince people that Madeleine is dead without evidence to support it then will just have to be questioned. But today the focus is on asking the public to help us petition the governments to do more.

DS Do you feel that you should be chasing libel actions' Some people might say why don't you just leave libel stuff to one side' Why try and silence your critics'

KM Well obviously we've talked about this in great detail previously. The reason why we had to take actiion was because we strongly felt it was damaging the search to find Madeleine and as Gerry has just said, that is our ultimate goal, is to find Madeleine.

DS I just wonder, can you update people' Where are you now' I mean recently you went over to Germany. You translated all your literature into German. So can you update people' Where are you now' Have you got any new leads' What's happening (''''''')'

GM I would like to say to you that we did have some hot leads but the very fact that we are calling for a complete review to identify further areas for investigation is telling you that, you know, more needs to be done. All the information needs to be put onto one database because that may be the way that we find the key bit of information, the missing piece of the jigsaw.

DS So at the moment you are worried that there isn't even a central database so the information might not be getting cross referenced (''''')'

KM Yes, I mean there's information in lots of centres that hasn't been brought together and there could be two key bits of information that individually don't seem key but put together could give you some valuable information that could take you one step closer to finding Madeleine so it just seems an obvious and crucial thing to do. And this is why reviews are done time and time again in this country on major investigations.

DS So you must be frustrated that the government has carried out a scoping into whether there should be a review and no action has been taken'

GM Yeah, I mean that's what we're asking for. We want to see what action. We want metrics. We want deliverables. And we want the government to do more. Madeleine is a British subject and the government should be doing more to look out for her interests.

DS And I was just wondering. How can people sign the petition'

GM Its on the ipetitions website. So its [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] then forward slash petitions but its quite a complex link.

DS We'll put it on our website.

GM Thank you.

ITV INTERVIEW WITH THE MCCANNS - 2nd November 2010

Presenter Three and a half years on, Kate and Gerry McCann refuse to give up hope of finding Madeleine alive but that's exactly what they think the authorities in Portugal and in Britain have done.

Kate McCann I do, if I'm honest I do. And I expected more, and whether my expectations were higher than they should have been. I don't believe so because we are British citizens and even opening Madeleine's passport on the front page it says that we will provide you with assistance and protection and I feel she could have a lot more.

Presenter The McCanns believe its two and a quarter years since either the Portuguese or British police did anything proactive to search for Madeleine. They're sure there's information to be found and pieced together and are asking for a full case review.

Gerry McCann I want to make it absolutely clear we don't want to have a review to look over mistakes and saying apportion blame. Its nothing to do with that. Its about identifying areas for further investigation.

Presenter The public is being asked to sign an online petition to lobby the two governments. Kate and Gerry McCann say they have met three Home Secretaries but need more than worthless words now

Kate McCann Thoughts and words are not good enough, particularly when they are in a position that they can actually do something about it.

Gerry McCann For the authorities now, if Madeleine was found, it would almost be by chance, and it shouldn't be right that this crime is solved by another child being abducted.

Presenter The Find Madeleine Fund which pays for investigators and an internet campaign is due to run out of money next spring. The McCanns say there are bad days when it is Madeleine's twin brother and sister who are now five who keep them going.

Kate McCann They're unbelievable. They really are amazing Erm, and they still talk about when Madeleine comes home, you know. How will they share the bedrooms' Will the three of them be together, well you know' What colour bedroom will we have, you know' They keep us going and this would be so much harder, or unbearable in fact, if it wasn't for Sean and Amelie.

Sky News interview with the McCanns: Martin Brunt 3rd November 2010

Martin Brunt The McCanns say all they want is the Home Office to persuade the Portuguese authorities for a joint review of all the evidence. They believe it would justify a new investigation into their daughter, Madeleine's, disappearance. Why do you think that isn't being done'

Gerry McCann Right at the minute we don't know why it its not being done'

Kate McCann Its a good question isn't it'

Gerry McCann We've asked'

Kate McCann I mean, as you'd be aware reviews are done of all major investigations in this country anyway. So they are obviously felt to be of benefit. So you do have to ask the question, why then, what is the block in doing a review of Madeleine's situation'

Martin Brunt But when you asked the Home Secretary that, two months ago, what did she say'

Kate McCann Well we don't often get answers to be honest. I mean there's a lot of words but nothing concrete.

Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won't tell the McCanns what's in the CEOP report.

Gerry McCann I don't see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We've been very clear all along the way that we'll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don't see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn't be given it. As Madeleine's parents I think it is wrong.

Martin Brunt Madeleine was nearly four when she vanished from the family's rented holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. The Portuguese police abandoned their investigation fifteen months later without any evidence of what happened to Madeleine. Today her parents are launching an online petition for support in their campaign for more government help.

Gerry McCann We are asking the people who elected the government to petition them to do more. They are not doing anything proactive. Madeleine's a British citizen. She's innocent. She's vulnerable and our government should be doing more to find her.

Martin Brunt Your hope, belief that Madeleine is still alive is as strong as ever'

Kate McCann Well the hope's definitely there. I mean it has to be, you know. With nothing to the contrary, you know, Madeleine's still out there and alive, you know, and to give up on her, just, I mean I can't get my head round that really, how a government or authorities can do that. We certainly can't give up on her.

Martin Brunt The McCanns say its scandalous that they and their small team of investigators are the only ones still looking for Madeleine. Martin Brunt for Sky News in Leicestershire.

Madeleine's family come together:  9th May 2007 BBC News video

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


John McCann has just returned from Portugal where his niece Madeleine was kidnapped.



Transcript by Nigel Moore



BBC: We'll speak now to Madeleine's uncle, John McCann. Now, John - just returned from Portugal late last night - joins us from his home in Glasgow. We're very grateful for you to, errr... to be speaking to us this morning, John. Thank you, so much. The thoughts of everyone watching are with you and your family. What are they like, errm... Gerry and Kate, this m...? How... how are they feeling?

John McCann: Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then and, you know, there was a... a feeling of helplessness but in the last few days they've had a lot of support and they've been buoyed by that support, both in Portugal and at home, and, errm... they're much more positive about things that can be done to get Maddie back.

BBC: Yes, what... what were you able to do out there? Obviously, you were off... able to offer a lot of support to your brother. Are the family very close?

JM: Errm... (laughs) I suppose that's all relative, errr... yeah, we... we get on really well. We've got a good dynamic amongst us all and it was amazing actually to, errm... to realise how strong the extended family is, errm... some fantastic people, like, errr... Mike and Nicky who are still out there, errm... helping Gerry and Kate with some of the... the handling with the twins, you know, so it's... some good stuff has come out of a very adverse situation.

BBC: Yes, I mean, and they'll need an awful lot of support because you... you just wonder how they're able to cope with looking after the twins as well, when all this is going on and there's so much media attention on them.

JM: You're right, it... it is very difficult and you guys have been pretty good actually in terms of, errm... you've not been too intrusive, errr... and been very helpful at getting people to... to rally round and support us and to get information back to the police because, at the end of the day, that's what we need is... is leads to be followed, so that Maddie can get back to us.

BBC: What are your thoughts, John, on how the police have handled this investigation so far? Because you'll know that in the newspapers a lot of them this morning are calling the Portuguese police 'clueless'.

JM: I... I don't think that's a... a useful avenue to explore. I'd rather take it forward in a different way and get people saying, 'Right, let's move on. What can we do now? What... what's the best way to tackle this now?' And I think Gerry and Kate want us to focus like that as well, so, please, you know, let's focus on what can be done now. Any information; let's get on with working on that.

BBC: Yes, okay, so you're quite happy and... and the family are quite happy with the way the police are investigating this, so far?

JM: Everybody's working to the same end, you know, nobody... nobody's trying to stop us getting Maddie back. Everybody wants Maddie back and everybody is working, as far as I could perceive out there, to... to get that wee girl back to us.

BBC: Of course. What's Maddie like? What's she like as a character? What's she like as an individual?

JM: Errm... (laughs) She's, errr... she's a mixture of her parents. She's very bright, very quick, very energetic, a right wee individual. Errm... My two kids love her to bits, errr... her and the twins, errm... she's so fun, errr... she can be... she can be a bit stroppy at times, errr... but what... what interesting kid can't be? Errm... She's a wee darling, errr... really fantastic wee girl.


[color:014d=000000][Acknowledgement:  gerrymccannsblogs]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

BBC NEWS: FRIDAY 30 APRIL 2010

Madeleine McCann parents say some don't want their daughter found
BBC World Service

Madeleine McCann went missing from her family's holiday apartment in the town of Praia de Luz in Portugal nearly 3 years ago.

She was days away from her fourth birthday.

Her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, tell the BBC's Mike Williams why they still believe their daughter is alive.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Transcript
By Nigel Moore

Kate McCann: If this was a... a murder inquiry there'd be an active investigation but, as it stands, we have a perpetrator who's still at large and therefore puts other... potentially other children at risk and we have a missing child. So why is there no active investigation?

Gerry McCann: Officially, for 18 months, law enforcement are not pro-actively doing anything to find Madeleine and who took her. And I just think that is fundamentally unacceptable. Now, we've been assured that if new information comes in, it will be followed up. In fact, the information that's come to light, during the recent court case, has shown that almost every single piece of information that's gone to Portimao - the police station in the Algarve, where the investigation is based - has been treated in exactly the same manner; which is being declared as 'not relevant'.

KM: I mean, I think it is a farce.

GM: There have been, errr... very poor elements of the Portuguese investigation and at the same time it's probably been one of the biggest investigations ever in Portugal. So we aren't, errr... tarring everyone. There have been individuals, who, for whatever reason, have not, errm... seemingly wanted to find Madeleine; that's what it appears to us. So there are people who are clearly making it more difficult and there are others within this country, errm... for whatever motives, want to make it more difficult and, you know, there are many people trying to derail what we are doing along the way.

KM: I also think there'll be some people that'll be greatly embarrassed if Madeleine was found and that... that scares me... that scares me that that might affect their want, or not, for Madeleine to be found.

Mike Williams: You've got two other children to raise. What do the twins, errr... know of what happened to their sister?

GM: Their recognition that what's happened is morally very, very wrong and that their sister should be at home with them and needless to say Sean, in particular, talks about having an aeroplane and flying all over the world and looking for that man that's taken Madeleine and when he gets him he's going to rescue her and put... take his sword out.

MW: Kate, you devote your time to the campaign to find your daughter?

KM: My day is very much, kind of, partly investigation; largely campaign now. We've started this holiday pack - which is posters and car stickers.

MW: So you're hoping that people will take these overseas with them when they travel; put their stickers up and...

KM: So it just means the image is out there constantly as a reminder to people that she's still missing.

MW: What do you hope happened? What's the best scenario that you can find comfort in?

KM: You just hope that it's somebody who is looking after Madeleine; that she is now... that she's not at harm and that she's getting love and happiness. You know, that's all I can hope for.

GM: And that isn't some sort of dream. At the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in the United States - with the most experience in child abduction - is that the younger the child, the more likely that they have been taken to be kept.

MW: What's the worst case?

GM: I mean, early on we couldn't think of anything else but the worst case; that she'd been taken, abused and killed and dumped - or maybe left seriously injured and dumped out in the freezing cold.

MW: You believe that she's alive? Not hope for it, do you believe it?

KM: You know, in my heart I feel she's out there; I mean, I really do. And that together with the feeling I have of this not being over, you know, that her still being there. The hardest thing, obviously, is how do we find her?

BBC 5 Live. Stephen Nolan interviews Clarence Mitchell, 07 January 2011

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Stephen Nolan: Our last story, errr... of tonight. Nearly four years since their daughter disappeared, Kate and Gerry McCann have written a book about their ordeal. Tonight, I've been talking to the man charged with keeping the hunt for Maddie in the public eye. A hard job these days for Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesman.

Clarence Mitchell: Well that's the fickle nature of the news media, isn't it, and the attention span of news desks. I mean the... the situation with Madeleine is still very much continuing and I'm still very much working on it on behalf of Kate and Gerry and all of the people who are... are helping them looking for Madeleine. Errm... I now work for a firm in London, Lewis PR, errm... but I'm still very much, as I say, active for Kate and Gerry and media enquiries still come in from around the world every day, in one form or another. Errr... All sorts of enquiries, interview requests, suggestions for features, sightings of possibly Madeleine. All sorts of things. They all have to either be passed on to the private investigators or we take decisions as to how we deal with them. So although I, and Madeleine, and the whole situation may not be in the news as much as it was, its still very active for me.

Stephen Nolan: And, of course, it... it's by the very nature of how news works that you're going to have that period that you've got to exploit, for want of a better word. You've got to get the maximum publicity because, you know, it will go away and it's gone now.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, I would argue that it hasn't gone completely. Kate and Gerry and myself are very grateful to the international news media, not just the UK, around the world for the continuing interest in Madeleine and whether she will be found. Errm... many, many families around the world of missing people have not had that luxury, if you like, where the media visit them at the start of their situation and then go away for good. That hasn't quite happened in Madeleine. I mean, look, here we are, nearly four years on, and still here we are discussing her on national radio. For that I'm grateful to the BBC and to you and your programme producers.

Stephen Nolan: How possible do you think it is though, Clarence, because you're a journalist at heart and you... you understand the amount of publicity you got; you understand that was exceptional. How... how possible is it that Madeleine is still alive given that level of publicity'

Clarence Mitchell: It is still possible that she is alive because there is no evidence to suggest that she isn't and that's the whole basis on which the investigation, the private investigation, continues to this day. In the absence of anything to suggest that she has been harmed or, as you suggest, has been killed, and there is no evidence to suggest that, then not only Kate and Gerry but everybody working with them will continue to keep going until an answer is found.

Stephen Nolan: Did the campaign cost a lot of money'

Clarence Mitchell: The campaign has cost a lot of money and continues to cost a lot of money and it's only happening because of the vast generosity of people around the world. If you remember an awful lot of money came in very quickly due to that publicity level that we were discussing. People responded and Kate and Gerry, everybody associated with them are immensely grateful to this day for every penny of it. It was all spent in terms of the investigation and running a private investigation in two countries, sometimes in several continents where if things have to be followed up around the world, is a very expensive business. All of that's been spent on various contracts, on various private agencies, errm... since... since it happened. At the moment, a small team led by Dave Edgar, a former RUC officer, errr... are... are still investigating and they are funded by the Find Madeleine Fund. We also, if you remember, had a number of settlements against certain newspaper groups, not least the Express, and all of the monies that were raised through that in settlement to Kate, Gerry and their friends went back into the fund and have been ploughed back into it. So the money is still there but it... it ebbs and flows as the investigative needs require.

Stephen Nolan: I want to talk to you, Clarence, about how the newspapers, errr... errr... dealt with Gerry and Kate in... in the context of what's happened in... in the Jo Yeates murder, as well, errr... of... of recent times. But before we do that, errm... what is your gut instinct because you've seen all the information and all the leads coming in' What's your gut instinct now as to what's happened' Are you comfortable sharing that'

Clarence Mitchell: My instinct has been, and remains, that there is a chance that she's alive and that's the basis we're all doing this. We wouldn't... if we thought there was no hope, you know, what would be the point of going on' But, because there is that absence of anything to suggest what's happened, it is just as logical to keep going. That's certainly what keeps Kate and Gerry going. Obviously, as her parents, they will maintain that. But for all of their supporters, people who are trying to help them, myself included, I honestly don't know what happened and therefore I've got to keep going, and as long as they want me to keep helping them then I'm happy to do that.

Stephen Nolan: Oh look, Kate and Gerry have recently said that they may need to face the fact that they may never face... they may never find their daughter.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, in their darker moments, of course, it was perfectly human, perfectly natural, to think that, but equally they're very rational and they think that until they know, they will keep ploughing all of their efforts into it. It's for Madeleine, it's their daughter for goodness sake and, of course, you or I would do the same, I would think. They've been very fortunate in having the resources and having the support because so many people have been kind enough to back them.

Stephen Nolan: When you get that world-wide attention, you see all different types of humanity because lots and lots of people are... are contacting you with information. And indeed some... some crazy people are contacting you with crazy information.

Clarence Mitchell: Anything that develops a profile, errr... as high as this case has, does attract all sorts of people. You're quite right. Errm... most of them, the vast majority, are well meaning and if information can be checked out and is credible or potentially credible then it goes through, not only to the British police, it goes through to the Portuguese police, and it goes through to the private investigators to be assessed; prioritised. It's very much a police operation. It's former British policemen that are working on it and then they will act upon it. Now amongst those, of course, there are the occasional slightly more lunatic things that are said.

Stephen Nolan: Did you get much nasty stuff'

Clarence Mitchell: There was a certain amount, errm...

Stephen Nolan: And what... what was that' People... people gloating that she'd been killed or what... what type of stuff was it'

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to talk about things that will lead inevitably, even now, to tabloid headlines about ghouls saying X, Y or Z. Some of the things that were said were awful, hurtful and, in cases where there was a direct threat, or any suggestion of anything happening, it went straight to the police and, in certain cases, which have never received publicity, police took action to stop it. To this day there is a very small but highly vocal minority online; the joys of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing but it has its downside, as we all know. There is a very vocal but very small minority of people who believe Kate and Gerry were negligent and to this day they rail and rant against them. They are powerless, they know nothing and it... it's totally irrelevant. But we keep a... a weather eye on what they're saying and if action needs to be taken, in certain cases, then it is.

Stephen Nolan: So, share with me, what it is like for Kate and Gerry when there is this media onslaught suggesting that they might have killed their own children. What is that like'

Clarence Mitchell: Well... it... what do you think' It is just appalling. Errr... It is hurtful in the extreme but it... it is just dreadful. And, of course, what makes it all the more frustrating for them was that they knew that much of the coverage was based on either falsehoods, misunderstandings, deliberate leaks from certain quarters, that were then mistranslated, either through mistake or through deliberately. A story that would appear on a Monday in Portugal, saying something was possibly the case - which we knew wasn't true - would then become hardened up as fact on the Tuesday in the British press and then, on Wednesday, it would be repeated, 'as reported by the illustrious London paper X or Y'.

Stephen Nolan: And presumably, Clarence, you're on the phone to the editors of those newspapers warning them about legal threats. The lawyers are on the phone. You're on the phone trying to stop them doing this and continuing to do this'

Clarence Mitchell: I was trying to brief the reporters on the ground. There were three packs, if you like, of journalists at the height of it. There were journal... journalists on the ground in Praia da Luz - where we were - wanting... almost in tears some days, demanding lines because they were under pressure from their news desk to deliver a front page splash. And certain days we didn't have anything to say, or the police had asked us not to say anything, and I couldn't help them but the whole thing was a nonsense but it was driving sales of papers. I had a second group of journalists in Leicestershire, and in the UK, trying to get to Kate and Gerry's relatives, trying to dig up stories about them and what was going on back here. And then, I also had all the columnists who had... it had become, if you remember, almost the dinner party topic of choice, for a couple of summers. You know, obviously there were legitimate questions about child safety and, errr... parental responsibility. Absolutely fine for discussion, no problem with that at all. But occasionally the odd commentator would overstep the mark and say hurtful things. We would talk to journalists on the ground and we would talk to editors. It made a difference sometimes. Overall, in certain cases, it made not jot... not a jot of difference.

Stephen Nolan: I know... I know you'll understand the... the limitations as to how much we can talk about... about the... the Jo Yeates, errr... murder at the moment but there has been, errr... a... a man, Mr Jefferies, who has not been found guilty; is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. He's been released on bail. He has not been charged, and you will have seen the front page coverage on him, and he has not been found guilty. What are your thoughts'

Clarence Mitchell: I think, from a journalistic point of view, a lot of the coverage, in certain papers which I won't name, was... was very near the mark, in terms of breaching the Contempt of Court Act. The basic standard in law, quite rightly, is that any person is innocent until proven guilty and that is a matter for the police to prove.

Stephen Nolan: So, why is our media getting... doing this, and how are they getting away with it, Clarence'

Clarence Mitchell: There... there is this insatiable desire now to be first, to be fastest. The 24/7 machine, the monster that I used to work in, and you still work in, needs feeding all the time. And news desks, I'm not saying the BBC... the BBC, thank goodness, is one of the... is one of the most responsible organisations but some news desks almost fall over themselves and almost forget the law. At the end of the day, no matter what deadlines and yawning spaces of coverage you... you need to fill, there are still basic tenets of fairness and justice in this country and I'm very grateful they... they exist. They serve everybody's interest, not just the defendants but the journalists as well.

Stephen Nolan: It... it... it is his legal right that Mr. Jefferies is presumed to be innocent. That is his legal right. Do you feel sorry for him given the coverage that he has endured'

Clarence Mitchell: I feel sorry for anyone who finds themself, for whatever reason, at the centre of the media firestorm these days. It's always been bad. You don't... wouldn't want journalists on your door step, and that would have happened in the forties or the fifties, if necessary, but it was much more at a leisurely pace and was nothing like the onslaught that it is now with the competition.

Stephen Nolan: So, Clarence, what... what needs to happen' Does... does the PCC work, the Press Complaints Commission' Errr... Does there need to be a change of legislation' What needs to happen'

Clarence Mitchell: Well, we... we tried to resort to the PCC, at times, and they were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping photographers away from the McCann's home. There were photographers camped outside their house, at the end of their drive, for six months. We even had paparazzi photographers, who normally do celebrity jobs in... in Los Angeles, turning up looking for them. And, you know, we had to patiently explain the McCanns were not celebrities, they didn't warrant this sort of intrusion and these photographers needed to be moved. Now the PCC were fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of making the news desks and the editors in certain papers sit up and really listen, I'm afraid we had to, reluctantly, pick up the rather large hammer of defamation action and say, 'You will apologise, you will settle this, errr... on our terms, or we will go further'. And thankfully, after a lot of discussion - the Express group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errm... But it was a reluctant action. You know, it shouldn't have got to that stage. But it wasn't of our making.

Stephen Nolan: It's interesting you talk about defamation because, of course, we see Nick Clegg very much pushing, errr... a bill and a proposal at the moment. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, obviously, in terms of relaxing, changing the defamation laws, errr... in... in this country.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, personal view, I... I think if anything there's... there's... there should be some argument for them to be slightly tightened up.

Stephen Nolan: Tightened up in the UK'

Clarence Mitchell: Well, because people... these days... or certainly there needs to be some sort of statutory reminder, not just to journalists but to all of your bloggers who are now online. These days a lot of people think, wrongly, that they can write what they like on a website. They are publishing that. It is a newspaper in all but name, an electronic version of it and the person responsible for distributing that material is legally responsible, certainly under British jurisdiction, for what they say in it.

Stephen Nolan: How on earth do you control the Internet' How does an Internet service provider know everything that's going onto their site and onto their channel' They don't, and that's the problem.

Clarence Mitchell: They don't.

Stephen Nolan: You can't control this beast.

Clarence Mitchell: This is... this is... this is the problem and this is what the politicians need to work out.

Stephen Nolan: So what would you do'

Clarence Mitchell: Well... hah... I... I would...

Stephen Nolan: Because you have been in the middle of one of the most high... prolific Internet campaigns that... that there will have been. So what would you do, given the experience you've had'

Clarence Mitchell: I would make it clear, if it's a... if it's a story around an... a crime. I would make it clear that the police, I think, from the first instance, have a remin... have a duty to remind journalists much more forcibly and clearly than they have done so far. In the Yeates case you mention, we saw the Attorney General having to come out and... and issue a warning around the coverage of Mr. Jefferies. Well, that's fine and absolutely proper but he should have done... that should have been done beforehand. A lot of young journalists are coming up through the ranks now who have not necessarily and this makes me sound like a bit of an old dinosaur but they have not necessarily come up through the... the traditional route of local newspapers, sitting in courts, watching juries, listening to verdicts. They don't necessarily know the finer points of defamation law, contempt of court, and I think a general reminder both in the journalistic industry, better training, errr... of the basic tenets of law and for the police, perhaps, in a high profile case, to sit down right at the outset and remind all of the covering media of their responsibilities. That won't stop online gossip. It won't stop tittle tattle. You're right. That can't be controlled. We watch what's said about Madeleine only when it enters the real world and goes beyond the keyboard and the screen in the middle of the night, then do we act. But in the... with responsible mainstream media I think there's a time for a reminder of some of the basics here that have... that have served journalism so well for generations.

Stephen Nolan: Just finally, Clarence, we... we understand that the McCanns obviously are releasing this book. Is this going to be, errm... a summary of everything we already know'

Clarence Mitchell: No, it's going to be Kate's story. Kate is writing it. Gerry, of course, is... is helping her but essentially it will be Kate's work. For... virtually from the first day it happened, errr... I was coming under pressure from various publishers, some of them very polite, but very persistent, saying they should write a book, or it should be ghost written. Kate and Gerry always said they didn't want to do that, they didn't feel the time was right, they had far more important things to do in the search for their daughter. They've now decided, and it's largely been driven by the need for funds for the... for the search to continue, that the time is right for the book to be written. Kate has been writing it for some months. She's probably finished about sixty to seventy thousand words and, errm... it's coming out on May 12th which is Madeleine's eighth birthday. It is designed to keep the search for her going. That is the simple reason.

Stephen Nolan: That's Clarence Mitchell talking to me earlier on tonight. That's it from the Nolan team for tonight. Thank you so much for your company. We'll be back tomorrow night, Saturday night, ten o'clock when you and I will talk about the big news stories of the day.

Met Comissioner: Madeleine McCann investigation could end soon

Transcript

Unknown caller - Hi, hi, good morning, my question is regarding to Madeleine McCann...

Nick Ferrari (host) - Oh yes.

Unknown caller - ...what chances can we find this girl?

Nick Ferrari - This is I think another additional 95,000 pounds that has been earmarked by the Home Office, I think, for Scotland Yard Sir Bernard, and that would mean around six months the investigations can continue.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Yeah, Michael (the caller) as you know there's been a lot of investigation time spent on this is, it's a terrible case isn't it, it's a child who went missing and everybody wants to know if she is alive if she is, where is she, and if suddenly she is dead then we need to give some comfort to the family, so it needed us to carry out an investigation together with the Portuguese and other countries have been involved and there is a line of inquiry that remains to be concluded and it's expected in the coming months that will happen. The size of the teams came down radically, I think we're now down to two or three people in that team, at one stage was about 30 officers in it, ahm, essentially it's a Portuguese inquiry...

Nick Ferrari - What do thirty people do all day Commissioner?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, the first steps they had to do was to actually review and look at all the things the Portuguese had done, to see whether or not there was anything we could offer that, you know, might help with that investigation, had they missed anything, now we do that for ourselves and the Portuguese review. So we thought, well, we were asked by the Prime Minister before I arrived, to see whether or not there was anything we could do to help that investigation. Our review...

Nick Ferrari - It takes thirty officers?!

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, err, yep, but just bear in mind what happened there, so you got thousands of pages, I went in to one of our police stations back in 2011 and there was a whole room full of documents that this inquiry had produced, you know, from the hundreds of witnesses statements, to all every card they checked out, from all, you know, these inquiries for those who don't get involved in them don't realize just what they generate, huge amounts of material, and of course, these all have to be translated.

Nick Ferrari - Yes.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - This didn't start out in English.

Nick Ferrari - Sure.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - They were translated into English.

Nick Ferrari - Have you moved forward in any way?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - I, well, that's what I'm indicating, is that first of all we had to extinguish the possibilities that existed in terms of inquiry, I think some of those have been stopped and there is a line of inquiry I think is, well, everybody agrees, is worthwhile pursuing.

Nick Ferrari - How long will this go on? When will you finally be prepared to stand down operation, I think it's Operation Grange, isn't it?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, really at the moment it will be the conclusion of this line of inquiry, unless something else comes up.

Nick Ferrari - So, you'd spend more money, again? Another 95,000 pound?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, if somebody comes to me, if somebody comes forward and gives good evidence we'll follow it.

Nick Ferrari - Yes.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - We always say that, ahm, you know, a missing child inquiry is never closed.

Nick Ferrari - Yes, but there are a hundred eighty-seven missing children in Britain, not all fortunately of the circumstances of Madeleine McCann. How come this one attracts so much attention and indeed funding?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, of course, you know, this was a decision of the government, that in this case they wanted to fund the Metropolitan Police to make this inquiry. If you remember, of course, this poor girl came from Leicestershire area, and was obviously aboard in Portugal at the time. So, we went, the Home Office, the government asked the Met to get involved and we have done our best as anybody humanly can, to try and find this girl, and that's surely the thing that drives us all. Newspapers have got involved, private investigators got involved..

Nick Ferrari - So, you don't see any standing down in the near future of Operation Grange?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, I thought it was clear(?), which is first of all, the line of inquiry that is being pursued, that obviously is important, it's important in the coming months that is resolved and I think it will be, if something new comes forward of course we'll investigate it, but that line of inquiry probably is, at the moment, is the conclusion of this inquiry.

broadcast by LBC radio, April 26, 2016

CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Debate panel from left to right: Tânia Laranjo, CM journalist; Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ inspector; João Ferreira, CMTV news anchor; Gonçalo amaral, former PJ inspector & Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs

Anchor João Ferreira - This special by CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to focus on the book that I hold in my hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie". It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The man that was at the forefront of the investigation during the first months of the case, a case that has been dragging on for the past nine years. It's the book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his truth about the mystery of the Maddie Case, a truth for which he was removed from the investigation and the reason why he requested an early retirement from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26 years of service. A truth, according to which the little girl died accidentally. Following that death, an unwanted and accidental death, the parents concealed their own daughter's cadaver. This is the truth that we are going to analyse in this special, where the man that wrote this book - and has just been acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon and absolved of having to pay a compensation of 500,000 euro to the McCann couple - will break the silence. A special where we are going to ask uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo Amaral, where we will confront his truth with other possible truths. Right now, let us have a look to the truth revealed in this book that is now allowed to see the light of day.

News Segment 1

Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in Portuguese) Please, give our little girl back.
(in English) Please, give our little girl back.

Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction, defend the McCanns. Accident and concealment of the cadaver is the belief of Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) - If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I doubt the body still exists. In that church there was a coffin with the cadaver of an elderly British lady which in the following day was going to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It was possible for the body of a child of that age and size to be concealed underneath that cadaver.

Voice Over - After six months of investigation, the former PJ inspector is removed from the Maddie Case, and this is one of the issues that was the object of his reflection. In the book that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie", there is a chapter dedicated to that topic: the removal of a coordinator from an investigation, conspiracy or subservience?, questions the former PJ inspector. And it is precisely due to the 220 pages written by Amaral and a DVD with a documentary about Maddie, that the PJ inspector became the target of a lawsuit, a legal process that has been dragging for numerous years. In 2009, the McCann couple went to justice, demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a compensation of 1,2 million euro. The McCanns considered the publication and the documentary defamatory, they alleged to have suffered moral damages. The British couple considered that their rights, liberties and guarantees of the family were violated. The defence of the McCann family considered that Gonçalo Amaral could not have revealed information that appeared in the process of the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance. The defence also alleged that the book was ready three days after the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e Menezes, redacted the dispatch that archived the process against the McCann couple, which had the date of 29 of July of 2008. In the book, the former criminal investigation coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the thesis that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and in the concealment of the 3-year-old girl's body. The McCann's defence lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued that the author, Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized documents from the process, documents that were prohibited. This was a process that dragged in court for years, with successive postponements of court sessions and an attempt to an extra-judicial settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.

Kate McCann (archive footage, press conference 2014) - We took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our children.

Gerry McCann - We want to get justice for Madeleine.

Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil court, ended up condemning Gonçalo Amaral to pay to each one of the members of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry, the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro plus interest, counting back from January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment, the civil court also decreed the prohibition of sales of new editions of the book and DVD, as well as the negotiations to transfer the copyright of both book and documentary. Gonçalo Amaral appealed, and there was a turnaround in this process. The Court of Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the PJ inspector and revoked the sentence. The judges understood that Amaral acted within the framework of the legitimate right to exercise an opinion. The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were, some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in numerous interviews all over the world. Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the indemnification of 250,000 euro to each member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo Amaral's book will soon return to the bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have already stated that they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and Gerry, who have always maintained that Madeleine was abducted, were constituted as arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 for lack of evidence to sustain the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the alleged accidental death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just a few days before of her fourth birthday. The English girl disappeared from this apartment (image of apartment is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings.

Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral, former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV commentator and Minister of Internal Affairs at the time of Maddie's disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former chief inspector of the Judiciary Police and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV journalist, who followed closely the investigations to the Maddie case. Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening madam, it's a pleasure to be here with you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with you, good-evening, thank you for being here.

Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you for the invitation.

Anchor João Ferreira - Did this investigation destroy your career?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my career. I had a dignified professional path in terms of work and progress in the hierarchy, I was an officer, an inspector, then chief-inspector, then I was a coordinator and could have gone a bit further, in fact at the time of the disappearance, when the case happened, I had applied for the role of superior coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it was a matter of time. So, that was the interruption, the life change, the career change, if I had stayed maybe I could have been in another professional position.

Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I begun to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...

Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...

Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to.. I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.

Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug from under your feet?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one pulled the rug from under anyone's feet. There were a series of circumstances that lead to this outcome. A colleague of mine is present here today, and he knows that it's very unlikely for the PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe with another director, I'm recalling Dr. Marques Vidal - to whom I express my gratitude for his support since the very outset, right from when the book was published, he presented the book - maybe it would have been different, maybe the protection of the officers would have been another. But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique case, a director of the Judiciary Police that we will never have again.

Anchor - A leader more brave than others?

Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great understanding of the officers, he was a very humane man, and defended those that risked, that worked at times almost without a net, he was there, present. I could tell you several stories, from the time of the Cavacos, the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave to the men on the ground. These are facts that can be verified, but we're digressing from the topic. I would like to add, that I have nothing against Dr. Alípio Ribeiro.

Anchor - But do you think that Alípio Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe that... For example, in this issue of requesting to the Direction of the PJ to speak in our defence or to allow me to speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the directorate of the Judiciary Police, addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later, I learned that that letter never reached his hands, he never read it. The letter stopped at his assistants, therefore I can't accuse him of anything, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the structural machine that exists, additionally the PJ direction does not usually come out in defence of its officers. Note that we're talking about the direction of the Judiciary Police but we could equally talk about the ASFIC (Association of the Criminal Investigation Officers of the Criminal Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for the officers, for its members, that were on the field, then and after? For example, right now, until now, what did they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any time - regarding myself, a retired officer with success on the work I did - ever called me? Either to congratulate, at this point in time or whatever. Nothing at all.

Anchor - Why do you think is that, Gonçalo?

Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture, of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe because I'm no longer in the police, have nothing to do with the PJ.

Anchor - Are you saying that there is fear from the people in the Judiciary to come out in your defence?

Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I find it strange, a very odd situation. Those who have congratulated me at this point in time, for this decision - a decision that has not yet been rendered final, and may still be the target of an appeal - but those who have congratulated me were colleagues that are retired, not colleagues in active functions. Not even a single colleague on the active congratulated me. On the other hand, I had the support of colleagues in the active from the British police, who also have been present along the years.

Anchor - Let us move now to your truth, the truth that is here in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another issue. That is not my truth...

Anchor - It's the factual truth.

Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that book represents the elements of the Judiciary Police...

Anchor - So, it's the material truth of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that the book is the opinion of the Judiciary Police until September 2007. Not my truth alone.

Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo Amaral, describes a scenario where the little girl Maddie suffered an accidental death...

Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is described in the PJ report written by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.

Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the parents and in face of that death the parents concealed the cadaver.

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an infringement. What that means is...

Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents should be behind bars? Should they be punished for these crimes?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have to do with that. For us to read and understand that book, we also have to understand the moment, the progress of the investigation. And we need to understand that an investigations as a beginning, a middle and an end, as my colleague Moita Flores says an investigation is always zigzagging and he's right about that. At that point in time of the investigation, when the archival was decided, the archival was decided in early October of 2007... Whomever lead the process after me, was there to adjust the process so it could be archived. Any colleague of mine can see that it is the adjustment of the process so it can be archived; all of us have at some point in time archived processes when reaching a dead end and we all know what to do so no investigative leads are left unfinished. So, at that point in time of the investigation that was the line of reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not my line of reasoning alone, it's of the whole team, of the Judiciary Police as an institution. I will go further, after that, nothing was done concerning that line of investigation that...

Anchor - Of the accidental death.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the probable responsibility of the parents in the mysterious disappearance of the child, with all that entails, but this is the essential. Yet, that line of investigation was set aside. Even the Scotland Yard investigation and so on, never explored that line of investigation, and now they've reached a dead end. They constituted, derided in my opinion, - this is what this is all about, opinion and freedom of expression - in my opinion as coordinator, as an investigator, that increase, that creation of numerous arguidos was a derision of that institution. There were two or three arguidos - the English didn't even know the meaning of arguidos was - and they decided to constitute even more arguidos, and now we have an ocean of arguidos. Before we had a few drops and now we have an ocean where virtually nothing can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.

Anchor - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.

Anchor - ... in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there isn't anything concerning what we just saw me saying on the news piece that was shown. Because these are elements, these are information that appeared afterwards and were never investigated. It's just an hypothesis, and when considering that hypothesis...

Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's body could have been hidden, could have been incinerated, right?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information here, in the police, that mentions that. That in a night, three figures were seen carrying a bag, entering the church...

Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a coffin of a woman, a woman from the United Kingdom...

Anchor - Of a British woman.

Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the following day that coffin was transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to be incinerated. But no one is saying that the parents did that, or saying who did that. It's something that someone who is on the field investigating has to ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.

Anchor - But you concede that hypothesis, that possibility of Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the church, and then incinerated is a plausible hypothesis...

Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically starting by the end, first is the disappearance, if you allow me to explain, to explain to the viewers... [overlapping speech]

Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not to lose this train of thought, is this hypothesis plausible for you?

Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I say plausible in this sense, that that body would fit underneath the cadaver that was already there.

Anchor - And it would fit?

Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the time, when I was already out of the Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion of people that dealt with that, of funeral agencies, and they said that it was a possibility. It's an opinion that is not officialized but it's a possibility. If it happened like that or not, we don't know, there are several hypotheses to make a body disappear.

Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What are the indications, post-disappearance that helped construct the material truth that appears here in the book?

Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed, I would have to look at the book pages and explain them to you in detail. There were several indicia, the contradictions, the discrepancies in the statements of those people, other witness statements that said they saw the father carrying the child at a certain hour, there are a series of indications that point towards that. To give you a full report on that would be tiresome, I believe most people know or are already aware. That was talked about numerous times throughout years. So, indicia and some evidence, evidence in inverted commas, concerning the vestiges that were collected and sent to the English forensics laboratory for analyses, it is said that there could have been a manipulation of all that data, it's still not clear what happened. I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann. And when the report arrived, it was no longer like that. It was said at the time that the profile with a series of alleles matched Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone in that laboratory could have contributed to that profile. So, why did it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to the US president profile? There's something very strange about that analysis, something that should be questioned, verified, investigated. I believe that when forensic analyses are done, the laboratory technician has to keep a record of what he is doing. I don't know if that was destroyed or not, but it should exist along side the report.

Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral before I'll return to you, let us now pay close attention to the next news segment. The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann was since the start embroiled in mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a few days before her fourth day. Let us now watch a reconstitution of that fateful Thursday.

Continued..

At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.

The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”

Dinner time approaches.

The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.

In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.

Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.

The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).

According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.

But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.

It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.

(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).

Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)

Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio.

Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation to the Maddie case pursued several lines of inquiry. There were political pressures that marked the beginning of the investigation, which, during a first moment, shielded the parents from becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis.

Continued..

News segment 2

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - 3 of May of 2007, just a little before midnight the Judiciary Police was alerted, a four-year-old English girl disappeared from a tourist resort in Praia da Luz. The parents dined in a near-by restaurant. It was necessary to proceed with caution, these were doctors, unsuspicious, victims of an abduction, of a hideous crime. Portimão was still living with the hangover of the Joana Case, Leonor Cipriano was condemned but the delay at the start of the investigation turned out to be tragic, the remnants of the little girl were never found. The Judicial condemnation didn't erase the doubts. In Praia da Luz, on that night, moments of tension were felt. When the PJ arrived on the scene, dozens of people had already been inside the apartment. They had contaminated vestiges, moved what could have been evidence, destroyed indicia that no one knows what they could have clarified.

The English government acted swiftly so the parents wouldn't be investigated, to focus on the search for the abductors. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed other pressures. On the morning of the 23rd of May, 20 days after the Maddie's disappearance, before leaving to Fátima's sanctuary, Kate and Gerry left a voice message to Gordon Brown. Maddie's mother described it as a way to increase the political pressure, she disclosed that Tony Blair's successor called back only three hours later. He spoke with Gerry, was very sympathetic and gave them strength, said Kate, who described the visit to the catholic sanctuary as overwhelming, powerful and emotional.

Apart from the contacts with Gordon Brown, Kate's diary also revealed other important allies. From the hiring of Clarence Mitchell as an advisor, who was working for the government at the time, to the conversations with the wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mitchell, in fact, had a pivotal role in the propaganda machine that was set up by the McCanns within a few days. They counted on the assistance from the British diplomacy in all the trips that were carried out. The first trip and the one with the most intense media coverage was the trip to Rome. They were received by the Pope Benedict XVI, the trip had been suggested by their advisor on the 27th of May, after speaking to Francis Campbell, the British ambassador at the Vatican. The visit to Rome was described by Kate as being very emotional, positive and important, and that loads of journalists and photographers had appeared, this was an ongoing concern present in the couple's lives. After Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Morocco followed, trips made with the objective to divulge Madeleine's face, followed by visits to consulates or receptions given by British ambassadors or by political representatives of the respective countries.

Amidst all that, was an investigation marked by breakthroughs and setbacks. Kate and Gerry started as victims, four months later Maddie's mother was constituted as an arguida for negligent homicide. The British dogs, requested by the couple, found the little girl's trace inside the boot of the car. A vehicle that was rented after the disappearance, where DNA vestiges were also found which suggested that Maddie had been transported in there. The genetic markers weren't sufficient. The doubts grew, the mystery thickened. Nine years later the narrative of the pressures remain, of a failed investigation, of a little girl who, dead or alive, has never been found. Where is Madeleine McCann? - the answer never came.

Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).

Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.

Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.

Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?

Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...

Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.

Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?

Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion that was always present and present in the investigations.

Anchor - So there were members of the British police whose opinions agreed with this thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one of the officers, a former police officer, that was present when the preliminary reports were known, what he said about the results was that back in England they would already have been arrested. The issue was that report was just a preliminary one and we needed the data of the official report, which arrived at the PJ as it did. That was his opinion, affirmed in front of several people who can testify to that.

Anchor - I'll return to you soon Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening, thank you for being here.

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.

Anchor - Let me issue you a challenge, suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral and as a PJ investigator you have to assess the truth presented by Gonçalo Amaral, which is the material truth. Is it factually sustainable or is there a possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral being obsessed by the belief that he formed and of him valuing more certain indicia that give substance to his belief and undervalue others?

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll try to play this game with you, and answer with the utmost honesty possible. The truth of an investigator has to do with something, that in all likelihood the common citizen is far from understanding. That is, when a real investigator starts an investigation, when he starts to have the perception of the facts and events, following leads, and elaborating his belief resulting from the findings and indicia that appear, it's obvious that he believes in them, but he can also keep its distance and is able to evaluate all the possible solutions available and diverging paths that may arise. I believe that all the work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and by the team at the time covered all those hypotheses and for doing so, they were able to reach determined conclusions, conclusions that he expressed in his book. If we pay attention and want to be honest, we can verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo Amaral in his book or in other situations, accuse the couple of homicide. He accused that an accidental death took place in that apartment, that they are suspects of concealing the cadaver, that the death is likely to have occurred as a consequence of a tragic accident, I stress there never was an accusation of homicide, and that there exists clear evidence of negligence in the guardianship of the children. Therefore, before this, what can I say - it should never be believed that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one truth. The truth before him is one which results from the indicia that he investigated, that is why he refuted the abduction thesis, which they also investigated until they reached a dead end and returned to the beginning, believing that the thesis of what really happened was an accidental death followed by the concealment of the cadaver. there's nothing else to be said about that. This question that you made, if you allow me, implicates another - is this investigation a failure or can it be considered otherwise? I would say that in a normal process, maybe we could say that this investigation was a failure. However due to what happened, with the pressures that were felt, with the press involvement, with the involvement of advisors from the English government, with all the manoeuvres done by the parents of the child who were always advised by press and image assistants. The whole theatre created around this, may to an extent signify that this investigation was a failure. I would add, that at that time, this investigation wasn't able to reach conclusions due to all the theatre that surrounded it, which effectively prevented the police to work as it should, in a tranquil atmosphere, following leads and constituting as arguidos those who needed to be constituted, carrying out the reconstitutions that should have been done, obtain results that would not be altered, and finally a series of situations that if you wish I can later detail.

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add, just to reinforce, that is not my truth, those are the conclusions of the investigation of the Judiciary Police and of the British police.

Anchor - You're not obsessed with this truth that is here(book)?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed, and I'll tell you why. What is in there is a specific time of the investigation, as I had said. A line of investigation that was being followed and was never resumed, and should be resumed. That line of investigation was not concluded, it did not reach a dead end, do you understand? If it had been concluded, then we would know what the results were. Now the issue here is that line of investigation is not allowed to be pursued.

Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly in your opinion?

Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't allow it.

Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese government, the Judiciary Police, the direction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese government nor the Judiciary Police, it's the British police. At this moment, Scotland Yard who is doing the investigation in one direction.

Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you, we have a man here who was the Minister of internal Affairs at the time...

Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A bit later on.

Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.

Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.

Anchor - It should be said that tutelage of the Judiciary police belongs to the Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was the government pressured?

Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm going to tell you the following, and please João allow me to contextualize it.

Anchor - Yes, of course.

Rui Pereira - I remember very well seeing in the English newspapers, right in the middle of the investigation, Portugal described as an exotic country, where the inspectors of the Judiciary Police were bushy moustached people...

Anchor - Exotic in what way?

Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing from a news article of a daily English paper, it described the Judiciary police inspectors as people that had bushy moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and red wine. Exactly like this! What was it that happened in this process? - and please give me some latitude to explain this. What happened in this process was that there was an initial error that caused a lot of damage to the investigation and this not to blame anyone...

Anchor - What was the error?

Rui Pereira - The error? Was not constituting the parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment (article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code). Because, without delay at the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory, in my perspective, that said that the English have very peculiar cultural costumes and therefore was natural for them to leave the two-years-old twin siblings and the other 3-years-old child alone in a bedroom, for the parents to go out a few hundred meters away, to socialize with their friends.

Anchor - Professor I'll give you back the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo please be very brief, why wasn't this measure taken?

Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of constituting them as arguidos? I would even go as far as to ask why weren't they constituted for abandonment as it should?

Anchor - For abandonment.

Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment, exactly.

Rui Pereira - That was given some thought at the time.

Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping speech, impossible to discern what is said)

Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.

Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, that is the distinction between what is a Judiciary authority and a bodie of Criminal police. So, he can't answer that.

Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely right.

Rui Pereira - I can answer your question.

Anchor - Here enters the pressure.

Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is this, we have a legal order - this is not to blame anyone, it's describing what should have happened - we have a legal order that makes the clear distinction...

Anchor - But you can say who was responsible if you wish Professor.

Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear distinction between Judicial authorities and bodies of Criminal Police. What matters for an inspector, an experienced one and with good reputation like inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover the material truth, with all the difficulties that existed in that case. Hence, there should have been a direct intervention of the Judicial authority that is in charge of the process, and that is the Public Ministry (public prosecution) to outline a procedural strategy.

Anchor - And there was no intervention then, in your opinion?

Rui Pereira - Clearly not, as far as I know...

Anchor - But why not? The Public Ministry "washed its hands" from it, like Pilate?

Rui Pereira - I cannot make a process of intention (accuse), but I do know what happened. I know that..

Anchor - And what happened for you was that there was no intervention?

Rui Pereira - No, not for me! What factually happened was that in the first interrogatory the PJ police was the only authority present. The Public Ministry, at odds to what should have been done never defined a procedural strategy, and the procedural strategy, obviously meant to play with certainty. And what was certain, was that the parents in an irresponsible manner...

Anchor - But why didn't the Public Ministry do that?

Rui Pereira - I don't know...

Anchor - But do you have any suspicion, do you have any explanation for that? Were they afraid?

Rui Pereira - No, nothing like that. Do you know why? Because sometimes in our relations with the foreigners, you know that racism is a very curious phenomena, and sometimes we almost have an inferiority complex in relation to some foreigners. When I saw reporting with a certain bonhomie in the Portuguese media, now it's not on the English media, that the English truly have very specific cultural costumes and it was natural to dine and drink..

Anchor - So you're saying the Public Ministry had an inferiority complex before the case, before the British authorities?

Rui Pereira - João, let me give you another example. Give me another minute please.

Anchor - Please professor, just answer my question before that.

Rui Pereira - But I'm going to answer you. Answers sometimes aren't a simple yes or a no. I'll give you a more subtle answer, in a recent case at the Expo (Tagus river area in Lisbon), when a Chinese child fell from a building (21st floor), what happened to the parents? They were constituted as arguidos.

Tânia Laranjo - They were arrested.

Rui Pereira - And no one said that it was natural, according to the cultural costumes of the Chinese, to leave the child alone and go gamble at the casino.

Anchor - So, I can infer from your words that the Public Ministry has failed. Tânia did the public Ministry fail?

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to say one thing, in this case, it wasn't only this parents (McCann couple) who left their children.

Anchor - Did you feel lack of support from the Public Ministry?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I wouldn't say that. I'm telling you something different, the other couples' children were also abandoned, and it wasn't just for one night, it was for a whole week. In order to constitute arguidos them (McCann) for abandonment, the whole group (Tapas7) of friends would have to be constituted.

Anchor - Did you feel alone, without the support of the Public Ministry, in the conduction of the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, we don't usually have a constant presence of the Public Ministry in investigations. The Judiciary Police advances normally with the investigation, which is supervised by the Public Ministry, and it also has to propose and suggest investigative steps to the Public Ministry. In this case in particular, someone from the Public Ministry, should have made the decision to be present since the first hour, which didn't happen.

Anchor - Tânia did the Public Ministry fail from what you could gather when you followed the investigation?

Tânia Laranjo - What was visible from the interpretation of the process and of the investigation that I followed during those months, those first months, was that the Public Ministry was completely absent, that is an undisputed truth, for better or for worse. Success or failure would always be of the Judiciary police and not of the Public Ministry, it was always completely absent of the investigation. Allow me to go back to one point. Gonçalo Amaral a while ago spoke of that meeting with the British ambassador, minutes later a press statement was read at the door of the PJ headquarters, the truth is that moment changed everything, from then on the Judiciary Police undertook a thesis, undertook the abduction thesis, and went into the investigation absolutely restricted. There, it would have been pivotal, like Professor Rui Pereira said, for the Public Ministry to be present, even more so to provide the guarantee and freedom for the police to be able to follow all paths. We have two elements of the Judiciary Police here that will naturally say this, that all investigative paths need to be followed and that (freedom to investigate) cannot be restricted. As to the parents, they would have to be considered suspects, naturally. The professor gave the example of the Chinese, but years before that, and in the Algarve as well, we had the Joana case where the mother was considered a suspect, in the majority of these situations the parents are naturally considered suspects from the first moment and are investigated.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that case the Public ministry was present.

Anchor - In the Joana case?

Tânia Laranjo - In the Joana case. Rui Pedro's mother, that is a case of disappearance that has not been solved so far, she was investigated in a first moment, and that is how it should be. With all the pain that a mother that has nothing to do with the disappearance of its own child must feel for being investigated. And naturally, here, we had an inferiority complex before the English.

Anchor - When you say 'we', are you saying the Public Ministry?

Tânia Laranjo - We, the Portuguese. We, Portuguese police; we, Public Ministry; we, Portuguese government and we, Portuguese journalists ourselves, because we also accepted at a certain moment for the English to impose upon us an initial thesis, the thesis that it would be impossible for those parents to have anything to do with the disappearance. The fact is, during those first moments, in one or another circumstances, if the parents had not been doctors and English, the Portuguese media would have gone for the jugular. I remember, let me just say this.

Anchor - Please be fast because we need to go on to a commercial break.

Tânia Laranjo - My daughter was about the same age at the time, when I was in the Algarve, those parents, like Gonçalo Amaral said, sat every night in that restaurant and they never had any viewing angles, it was not possible. No Portuguese parent would ever leave a child sleeping alone in the bedroom.

Rui Pereira - What if there had been a fire, what if there had been a tragedy? Not to say anything further, but really for exposure to abandonment there could have been other consequences...

Tânia Laranjo - At least that situation, that crime existed.

Anchor - They should have been constituted as arguidos. Gentlemen, madam, let us now take a very short break. After the break we'll see the lines of investigation that still exist and should be followed in this process. See you soon.

Anchor - The Maddie process was reopened in 2013. At this time, all hypotheses remain open, from abduction to accidental homicide committed by the child's parents. The English have an independent investigation.

Continued..

News segment 3

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - Almost 9 years after Madeleine McCann disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, all hypotheses remain open. The process was archived in 2008, re-opened in 2013. From the negligent homicide they moved to the abduction thesis. The suspect was a man that had already died. He would have abducted and murdered Maddie, buried the body in the proximities of the tourist resort. The new thesis surfaced after a thorough examination carried out by another team of investigators. Elements of the Judiciary Police from Oporto spent months reviewing the process. They searched for loose ends, abandoned the thesis defended by the team of Portimão. After all it hadn't been Kate, Madeleine's mother had not been responsible for her death. It hadn't been an accident. The thesis was never confirmed, the Judiciary police investigated, searched but found nothing. At the same time they kept a close cooperation with the English, who, in turn, continue to ask for more investigative steps to be carried out via the letters rogatory. They have already been on the field, asking for more excavations to be done, but found nothing. Breakthroughs and setbacks, absence of answers, Madeleine has never been found. There is no body, ransom note, any solid evidence to indicate what effectively happened on the night of May 3, 2007. After 9 years the process remains open, at least until its limitation period, which will happen in 2027, twenty years after Madeleine disappeared.

Anchor - Gonçalo, do you believe things at this moment are being routed for the process to be archived here in Portugal?

Gonçalo Amaral - I have no doubts whatsoever, what was done by Scotland Yard is practically at an end. What they wanted to do was basically to, and I had said this before, was to in a certain way to give credence to the couple and remove all suspicions that existed concerning the couple. They did a reconstitution here in Portugal, not with the couple but with actors; constituted a series of arguidos that have nothing to do with the case, just for the sake of constituting arguidos; they followed a number of false leads. Now they have reached an end, after having spent a lot of money, maybe there isn't any more money to spend, perhaps the British public fund may not support such expenditure. And it will be archived, I can't see the Judiciary Police resuming the investigation when Scotland Yard ends theirs. In the end, the process was re-opened almost only and by the Scotland Yard, and when they leave the process will be archived just like before.

Anchor - Help me here in this line of reasoning, just a little while ago you said that there are still lines of investigation that remain open.

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, remain open.

Anchor - ...if the Judiciary Police follows those lines of investigation...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to recall something, in brief, this court decision that has not yet become final (res judicata/passed into matter adjudged), there are still a few days left for it to become final, but I can give you an idea of what was...

Anchor - The decision of the Court of Appeals?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it's new, the deadline for the appeal is taking place.

Anchor - Of course.

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you what in essence is concluded, is that the line of investigation that is here (book) and remains open, is a plausible one. And we can conclude that from this decision like we could conclude from the decision of the temporary injunction.

Anchor - That's included in the decision of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon that acquitted you from paying the indemnification?

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, and in the temporary injunction they go further, they actually said that it even though the Public Ministry had archived the process, with another Public Ministry another result could have occurred. Even so, this line of investigation isn't followed and nothing is done relatively to it.

Anchor - But by not following it, what does that mean? That the actual direction of the Judiciary Police doesn't want this case to progress?

Gonçalo Amaral - That's not the question. This is a case that appears to be traumatizing several people, right? Maybe someone completely neutral has to appear in face of all this, that decides to advance with the investigation. In all the lines of investigation and this one that is missing. (overlapping speech)

Anchor - But is the Judiciary Police afraid of the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's something that the Public Ministry says in the archival dispatch in respect to the reconstitution that wasn't carried out because the friends of the couple didn't wish to return to Portugal. They said the ones who lost with that, the ones who are jeopardised are the couple. We could reach the conclusion that what they said - that we believe to be contradictions or lies - where truthful. The reconstitution could be good for them. Usually that is what happens, it can have a good or bad result and this investigation...

Anchor - Gonçalo please, just answer this question...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to conclude. If this line of investigation reaches an end, with what is left to be done, and if at the end of all that is concluded that after all the parents could not be, in any way, held responsible for the disappearance of the child, that would only help the couple.

Anchor - Of course. Isn't the Portuguese Judiciary Police interested in finding the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - The Portuguese Judiciary Police is likely more interested at this moment for no one to speak about the case. Because it's a case that has left several people distressed, it seems that there is a series of people traumatized with the situation. People that want, for example, to be able to prove that parents don't murder their own children, I'm not saying that this ones did that of course. It seems that there is a whole culture, a way of thinking that has existed until recently and needs to be changed because we are all upset by it.

Anchor - Manuel Rodrigues, the Judiciary Police doesn't want to find the truth?

Manuel Rodrigues - I appreciate that you made me that question because I don't agree with Gonçalo in this aspect, likely the only one. I don't think that that is the situation, it's not the 'not wanting to', what I think is that, like I said earlier, this process was subject to a blockade in such a way, that at this moment it's extremely difficult to escape from this. That is, what I want to say is that I agree because I am obliged to agree with Gonçalo when he says that the British police set out an investigation where they decided to constitute a series of arguidos in order to credibilize the couple, to take them from one looking at the process and the only arguidos in there that one sees is the couple, seeing that they are responsible for what happened. For that, they constituted six more, or eight or nine arguidos to divert attentions and diminishes the possible responsibility. Now, to be able to move forward, in a process like this, the timings have all been lost, everything disappeared, we need to have this notion that it's very difficult at this time to recover a body, it's very difficult to retrieve, even making a reconstruction, a credible and exact idea of what took place yet it was imperative for this to have been done.

Anchor - That attempt was indispensable.

Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, and I don't understand why it was never achieved, certainly not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police.

Anchor - Not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police?

Manuel Rodrigues - Certainly not.

Anchor - By whom then?

Manuel Rodrigues - Someone has prevented that reconstitution, and that is why that those couples, friends of the McCann...

Tânia Laranjo - Inclusively, the friends themselves refused to come back.

Anchor - But who is that someone?

Manuel Rodrigues - Don't make me name things...

Anchor - The English police, the English government?

Manuel Rodrigues - We've already talked here about the direct assistance given to the couple by English governmental aids...

Anchor - The English government and the English police, is that what you are trying to say?

Manuel Rodrigues - Obviously. I cannot say anything else differently. I cannot have a different interpretation when in a first exam that was done in an English laboratory, because the Portuguese had the honesty of sending them the evidence, they weren't even analysed here - 'let's send it to England so they can carry out the tests so no doubts remain', in a first moment...

Anchor - Honesty or naivety?

Manuel Rodrigues - Pure naivety. In a first moment 15 alleles of a series of 19 appear, that constituted Maddie's DNA, and in a second report those 15 alleles had completely vanished, there was no longer any DNA of the girl present in there.

Anchor - So, what you are saying is that the probabilities for the "Guilt to die single" (Portuguese saying, no one get's blamed for it) are high.

Manuel Rodrigues - Extremely high.

Rui Pereira - It's a certainty.

Anchor - So, the "Guilt dies single" then professor?

Rui Pereira - Yes, it will, it absolutely will. Now, what I would like to tell you João is that...

Anchor - But the Judiciary Police, in your opinion Professor, is doing everything they can or they want to archive the case?

Rui Pereira - The Judiciary Police was under great pressure by the huge media coverage of the case, it was very active then and at a certain point in time it short-circuited, and why? Because what happened in the Algarve was that negligent parents left their children helpless, who could not defend themselves from natural or human threats, all alone! And in the sequence of that, which initially was a crime of abandonment, the child disappeared - there are no doubt about this.

Tânia Laranjo - And that was everyday.

Rui Pereira - For the English media what happened was that in an exotic country in the south of Europe, in a tourist resort, one child disappeared, full stop. And that the English police is unable of finding out why, full stop. This second story, is a narrative that is totally detached from reality. Thus, what failed in there, and I insist, was the first moment. In the Portuguese Penal code, the Public Ministry who is considered to be the "Master" of the inquest (process), but rarely intervenes. Let me add, that I feel most reassured because the Court of Appeals produced a balanced decision, and even though the case isn't over yet, it's a civil process and there is still an appeal to the Supreme, it seems to me that what the Court of Appeals concluded is correct. It doesn't say that the investigation of the Judiciary Police is truthful but says that what is revealed in the book corresponds to the investigation, and therefore, within the freedom of information, within the freedom of the press, can be made public.

Anchor - That is a plausible line of investigation. Gonçalo Amaral are you going to sue the McCann couple?

Gonçalo Amaral - At this moment I'm not thinking about that. There is always a reckoning of the numbers, the case has not yet ended, there are still appeals, let's see what will happen from now on, and then I'll decide.

Anchor - But you suffered damages, well, you obviously suffered moral damages, and you suffered material damages as well?

Gonçalo Amaral - And others. We have to wait. I don't think that is essential at this moment. What is essential now is to wait for this deadline to end, that the couple has to make an appeal, verify, to know the basis of their appeal, and only then react.

Anchor - What is going to be necessary for you to take that step? To make that decision to eventually sue the McCann couple.

Gonçalo Amaral - If at the end of this appeal..

Anchor - Did you not think about that yet?

Gonçalo Amaral - I thought about that, yes, but to affirm that I'm going to sue, let's take it slowly. I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people.

Rui Pereira - Inspector please allow me to say something very briefly, just to complement. What in fact is curious in the process, is that when the couple gave their Statement of Identity and Residence, they used an address in England, isn't it true?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, that's true.

Anchor - Are you going to publish this book in English?

Gonçalo Amaral - I'm planning to do that, yes. I know that the couple said that if anyone buys the book in England they would sue them. So? The couple does not own the English language and the book can be published in any language, namely in English. In any country where English is spoken or even via the internet. Now, what's going to happen, I'll still need to talk to my publisher, that still hold copyrights on the book. But I do have the intention of divulging the book even because there are some copies going around and inadequate translations online, and people have the right to know what my opinion is, and the opinion of others, and know them through in the official work.

Anchor - Gentlemen, madam, thank you so much for being here in this special broadcast by CMTV. We conclude with another news piece. In just one single day, in the exact same day Maddie was seen in the Brazil, in Canada, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte (Huelva, Spain) and even in Syria. The thesis multiply but of Maddie there is not a single trace.

News Segment 4

Voice Over - 3 of May 2007, a British little girl, 3-years-old, disappears from the hotel's (sic, apartment) bedroom where she slept with her twin siblings, in the Ocean club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Algarve. This, whilst the parents dined with friends in a restaurant, less than fifty (sic, only in a straight line) meters away from the apartment. Two days later the Judiciary Police of Faro says that they could now state that the daughter of the McCann couple had been abducted. A theory that continues to be alive in the memory and on newspaper pages that every year tell about another suspect, of another search carried out by the Portuguese authorities or English in Praia da Luz, or of another statement by someone that guarantees to have seen the girl, whom, if still alive, is now 12 years-old.

Anna Stam, a 42 years-old Dutch, was working in a shop when a blonde and blue eyed little girl asked her 'Do you know where my Mummy is?', convinced her mother was the woman that was with her, Anna pointed in the woman direction. 'She is not my Mummy, they took me from my holiday', said the child who according to the description was 4 or 5 years-old and spoke in a perfect English with a French accent (sic, the woman had the accent not the child).

This is just one of the sightings that can be found in the over thirty volumes and dossiers of the investigation that is yet to be concluded. The information is so dispersed, that on the same day (11th May 2007) Maddie was seen in Indonesia, in Singapore, in Mozambique, in Brazil, in Canada, in Belgium, at Zurich's airport in Switzerland, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte at the Spanish border and even in Syria. Not all sightings were taken into account, only those which according to the authorities presented solid elements, like one description of a sighting by two British sisters, who assured to have travelled in a bus in Malta with a little girl resembling Maddie who even had a similar eye defect in the right eye and who said to the woman who was with her 'You're not my Mummy'. After Malta it was Morocco, the stage of numerous sightings. First the sighing by a Norwegian woman alleging she had seen a girl similar to the oldest daughter of the McCann couple at a petrol station, followed by dozens of sightings, like one sighting of Madeleine in a mansion, in Massira, on the streets of Agadir or in Marrakech. After Morocco, the little girl that cried 'Help' in Mem Martins, in Amadora (Lisbon suburbs), then a Roma couple with a baby stroller in France, with a child that didn't appear to be theirs. Hundreds of psychic visions and divinations that placed the little girl at a specific street in Sagres or inside a hole in the vicinity of the tourist resort from where she had disappeared. Theories are abundant, of Madeleine Mccann there is not a single trace. Recently, in 2015, the Australian police entered in action, at stake the body of a child, with light hairs, that would have been murdered in 2007 and placed inside a suitcase, a few days later the conclusion - the body found in Australia wasn't Maddie's. Nine years and hundreds of sightings later the mystery remains and the sightings multiply.

Cândido, a former farmer and fisherman, that lives less than 100 meters away of the tourist resort from where the English child disappeared told CMTV why he can't erase the night of May 3, 2007 from his memory.

** Cândido - On the day the girl disappeared, her father, at 1am, was walking around with a bottle of wine in his hand, and he was 'atascado' (drunk), and screaming for the girl near to my door, I live right there close to the main road, and I said 'what's going on, what's all this noise?' and he said 'menina, menina' (girl, girl), 'embora, embora' (gone, gone), and I said 'girl gone, what girl?', and he said 'menina', and I said 'go call the police', 3 hours he said, 3 hours since the girl went missing, and I said 'call the police', and he said 'no police, no'.

Voice Over - Today Madeleine McCann is not the same child that we got used to watch in loop on TV. If she is alive she will be 12 years-old. For now it's the synonym of a perfect crime. No one has seen her, no one knows where she is, much less what happened on that night of 2007.

Anchor - This is the end point of this special broadcast by CMTV, 'Maddie, the Mystery', where we tried to bring new facts into light so this mystery may one day be solved.

[Acknowledgement: Joana Morais]

TRANSCRIPT

AG: I want to issue a very, very warm welcome this morning, to two guests -- to Clarence Mitchell and Janet Kennedy. Clarence -- lots of you will know -- those of you who watch the BBC over the past years will know -- Clarence started his work, I think, as a reporter in Leeds, not so far from here...



CM: …newspapers first, then BBC and Radio Sheffield - and then Leeds.



AG: …Sheffield and then Leeds -- and then moved to London to work on Breakfast television and general reporting including some really significant cases -- Fred and Rose West…



CM: …Millie Dowler -- I was also one of the deputy royal correspondents that did Diana’s death.



AG: And then Clarence you moved from there to work in the government Media Monitoring Unit. Is that correct?



CM: Yes, I -- I joined the Cabinet Office in 2005 and I became Director of The Media Monitoring Unit which is a very small team based within the Cabinet Office - as it was then. It’s now part of COI. And it exists to brief ministers on the day’s media agenda and, you know, how -- how the various story strands of the day are moving through the media and then the special advisors at Number 10 decide - on that - how they deal with it and which ministers are put out to speak.



AG: And then as we know, in September last year Clarence moved from that work to being spokesman for the McCann family. Which brings us to Janet Kennedy -- and really delighted that you’re with us this morning. Thank you so much for coming. Janet, you’re Kate McCann’s aunt - is that right?



JK: Yes, my husband Brian is Kate’s mother’s brother -- is that right? [Laughs]



AG: That’s right. And you live in Rothley?



JK: And we live -- we’ve lived in Rothley for 25 -- 26 years now -- and Kate and Gerry came to live there, I suppose, about 2 years ago -- they’d lived in another village called Queniborough which isn’t too far away -- when Gerry got his job at Glenfield as a cardiologist. So we’ve really been in the thick of it, I suppose you could say, living -- living in Rothley. And it’s been hard - very hard.



AG: What we’d like to do together over the 45 minutes or so that we have, is to look back over what’s happened in the last 13 months. But our theme for the last two days has been questions of values in the new media environment. And so I’m interested to explore with you, what you and the family have done with the media and what the media have done with you - and what your reflections on that are. We come to this as - many of us - professional communicators and we have everything to learn about the impact that the media is making. The first thing I’d want to ask you though - just to begin with is - could you tell us how Kate and Gerry are?



JK: Erm -- Well -- Each day is different I think. They’re sort of buffeted by -- partly you know, what the media has to say, although I think it is quite quiet at the moment and I think those people who’ve seen the documentary, know that erm --

I think they’ve just gathered all their strength together to devote themselves to the twins and to actually be very focussed on the search for Madeleine and anything that will bring about a resolution. And they’re both highly intelligent, articulate, strong people with great love for their children and I think they’re able to channel that, you know, into what they have to do each day. It doesn’t make it easy but I think they’ve got the psychological wherewithal, you know, to give themselves up and just cope with each day as it comes. That’s how I would express it.



AG: Can I take you back to the time when Madeleine disappeared? We know that many children disappear in all sorts of circumstances and it’s of relevance to us, I think, how that particular event became the media story that it did. I mean, my understanding is that, it was somebody in the UK who first approached the media on behalf of the family. Have I got that right?



CM: The -- the story, if you like, began rolling back here, across news desks, in the early hours of the night of the 3rd into the 4th when a number of relatives and friends began sending in pictures of Madeleine - primarily to BBC’s National News Desk. At one point there was so many pictures of her coming in the BBC actually queried this and said, ‘Well who is this girl? We don’t know.’ And a lot of -- a lot of checking, quite rightly, went on in the early hours. This was entirely nothing to do with Gerry and Kate or any of their friends who were actively searching and helping the police to look for Madeleine.

And that’s why the allegation that’s made often and has been repeated so frequently seems like a fact - that somehow Kate and Gerry were manipulating the media from the outset - it’s just totally untrue. In the modern 24/7 online connected era, I would defy any family with friends or relatives, who have images of a missing child, not to get online and use that capacity - and that’s exactly what happened.



AG: We’ve been talking in the last couple of days about just the way that happened. When stories of the -- if you’d like to call them stories -- I mean it’s not a story at one level is it...



CM: No.



AG: …in your life? But when stories begin to happen – now - we’re all reporters, you know. Every – every [one] in the street has a video phone and is sending material out.



CM: Well that has fantastic advantages; the power of the good the net can achieve is wonderful - equally it has its downsides which I’m sure we’ll discuss.



AG: So this story as it were -- the media story -- began to roll without any initiative, at first, from Kate and Gerry and their friends in Portugal. Is that – is that how you recall it?



JK: That’s how I recall it. I mean we had a phone call from Gerry in the early hours of the morning after, you know, the whole thing was discovered - and I would have said that they would have been just too distraught to have had any thought at all about, you know, ‘how we’re going to approach the media?’ -- It would’ve been the last…



CM: Yeah…



JK: …last thing in their minds…



CM: [interjects] But, in fact, two of the detectives on the night -- when they were leaving that night, Gerry said, “Well what about the media?” And they said, “No. No media. No media. We don’t do that.” [Laughs] So, you know, it was just a completely different mindset from the start.



They [K&G] had enough -- more than enough on their plate. They were out searching. They were helping the police. And when they came back from one of their first visits to the police station Gerry was amazed to see the number of journalists that were already outside the apartment. None of that had come from calls from their [beck]. It had come because the wire services were reporting it. Material was coming in from friends and relatives and ‘the machine,’- if you like - had latched unto this as a major story from the -- from the word go.



AG: Now Janet, you must’ve been closely involved with them, at that stage, although you were in England at the time. Was there a point where Kate and Gerry decided that they needed to be proactive with the media - to positively engage with the media?



JK: I -- I’m not really sure myself about that, you know -- at the time -- It’s not something I’ve discussed with them. My own feeling of the first few days was, you know, just try to get in touch with the Foreign Office, you know, to try and get some kind of help in terms of it being a foreign country.



I mean I know that the morning after it happened I -- Kate, you know, had phoned me because -- this sounds terribly trivial -- but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm -- to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.



AG: What -- What happened?



JK: Well, there were just over a hundred people with cameras and reporters -- And they’ve got a sort of gate and then a little driveway and I mean I was -- I suppose I was really daunted, you know, by this sort of complete media intrusion, as I thought, at the time.



AG: What does it feel like?



JK: Well, if I tell you that I sort of knelt on the playroom floor so that I wouldn’t be seen because there was -- I was aware there were long range cameras focussing on the house and there were just flashing lights, flashing cameras, people continually coming up and knocking on the door and I just wouldn’t answer the door. You know, I felt totally imprisoned really and very threatened and, you know, I would think I am quite a mature person who can deal with all kinds of crises. But it was quite overwhelming I have to say -- just this complete takeover of my life, you know, at that time -- and poor Kate and Gerry there, you know, with no Madeleine.



Eventually the police called and they sort of said, you know, that they would liaise with the press. But I think, at that point, I didn’t really just want it to be the police. I felt that we should also have a say in it, you know, sort of over the course of that first day; I thought well perhaps we ought to represent our own point of view and not just have the police, as it were, issuing standard replies, you know, which I assumed perhaps they would do. I don’t think I was very sensible about it at all, you know [Laughs].



AG: …I can’t imagine I’d have been very sensible either…



CM: [interjects] Brian and Janet had to basically run their own media operation from scratch -- out of the blue -- particularly given the fact that Kate, Gerry and the rest of the group were in Portugal. It was -- there was a natural focus of interest at this end but in Portugal we had 40 crews -- TV crews alone on the ground -- up to 300 reporters, if you include all the prints and online and radio as well.



AG: And who was -- Was anybody managing that?



CM: Initially -- Initially -- and this is how I came to be involved -- Initially, Mark Warner, the holiday company concerned, brought in one of their PR people - Alex Woolfall, who’s the crisis manager expert from Bell Pottinger - who works with the company anyway. He came out and the embassy sent a press officer down from Lisbon. As British nationals, in trouble abroad, Kate and Gerry were offered full consular assistance. In this exceptional level of media interest it meant that there had to be an unusual aspect of media handling because there were so many on the ground; they wouldn’t normally send a press officer down but in this case they did. And it became clear, very quickly, that the numbers were so great that extra help was needed from London. And the FCO, through the embassy, was then asked for another press officer to go out and they initially sent out Sheree Dodd - who had to move house that week - and she came back. And because of my active media connections -- and I was working within government at the point -- at that point -- I was asked to basically go out to replace her. So I…



AG: So you were doing that on behalf of the Foreign Office?



CM: …I went out initially for a month - I was told, ‘Oh, this’ll all be over in a fortnight’ and I went out for a month and -- and that was -- that was why I got involved. Now, again, it’s often been said, ‘Oh, why are the McCann’s so special? Why do they need a spokesman?’ I exist because of the media interest. That is the only reason why I did this initially, and it continued the way through the year, as we’ve seen and -- and that’s why I’m still doing it today because the media continue to be interested. It’s not because Kate and Gerry are in any way special, or their case is any more deserving than any other missing child.



AG: So you started Clarence as a representative of the Foreign Office. But Kate and Gerry did actually employ their own media spokesperson at the -- at an early stage didn’t they - Justine McGuiness?



CM: After me -- when the British government element ended and I organised the trip around Europe that we did and we went to visit the Pope - again, largely at the Vatican’s […] behest, although we had to formally apply for that audience. After we had organised that - via the embassies - the government felt it was right that the public aspect of this should come to a close because it had been -- they had been assisted for so long at taxpayer’s expense.



And also, by that stage, a lot of money had come in from the very generous donations from the public. And Gerry, Kate and the wider family felt it was appropriate to bring a campaign manager on board to look at more long term strategic campaign ideas. In my role it’s just fire fighting -- hour – for -- hour by hour -- the media handling-- and so she [Justine McGuiness] came on for that and then I came on to take over from her later.



AG: And Janet, were you involved in discussions with the family about starting a campaign as it were?



JK: No, I wasn’t personally, my husband Brian was, there was a erm -- The fund was started at the Walker Stadium in Leicester -the football club. And my husband Brian was one of the people appointed to the board. Not so much as a family member but a sort of safe pair of hands because he was a retired headmaster and it was thought perhaps somebody like that, you know, would be quite measured -- erm I’m not sure that that’s true. [Laughs]



AG: I don’t know why that got a laugh. [Audience laughs]



JK: But, you know, he was -- There were about -- It was actually set up by Glenfield Hospital by colleagues of Gerry’s who, you know, were utterly helpless and wanted to do something to forward the search for Madeleine. And also there was the whole fact that they were stuck out in Portugal and, you know, weren’t able to come back home.



So certain colleagues all contributed a certain amount of money and obviously once people start donating, you know -- I think it was a thousand pounds each -- some of these people, you know, that, you know -- And also the donations were pouring in and I was going to the house and opening mail and cheques were coming in and people writing supportive letters.



And the whole thing, you know, was just sort of overwhelming and I think it was felt that to --to sort of be accountable and for the money to be channelled in a sort of rational way it was important to set up a trust fund - a Madeleine fund. It couldn’t be a charity because it was for one missing child and of course charities status has got to be, you know, that it’s for a group ,to be say, missing children --



CM: The public good



JK: For the public good -- And this [fund] was just generated because Madeleine’s disappearance generated so much public concern and interest.



AG: In those first days and even weeks, the media attention - although it was absolutely intense - was substantially very supportive, as I recall?



JK: It was. It was. Without a doubt. It was -- it was tremendously supportive. There were one or two people who approached me, who sort of suggested that it would be a really good story if perhaps, you know, they could have access to the house and see Madeleine’s room and what was inside it.



AG: But tell me what actually happens when somebody approaches you like that?



JK: Well…



AG: …I’ve done some dodgy things as a broadcaster but I’m not sure that I’ve done…



JK: Well I mean I had…



AG: … what happens?



JK: …I had made a decision from the word go that the inside of the house was totally off limits because I was just so scared of this whole thing becoming sentimentally slushy and pandering to -- to the worst kind of intrusion.



AG: But did – did somebody ring you at home and say, ‘I’m from The Sun, can I come round your house?’ How does it work?



JK: Yes --Yes they did or…



CM: Letters are put through letterboxes or offers…



JK: And people knock at the door and if I was in the house, you know, people would come to the house and, you know -- and they asked about going inside. And I just said that I thought it was totally inappropriate and that I -- I was absolutely aghast that anybody could even think of -- of doing that, you know.



CM: And that was absolutely the proper response from the family’s point of view. But of course that doesn’t play the media game. There is a stereotypical, kneejerk, news desk reaction - certainly in the tabloid side of things is, ‘We’ve gotta see the grieving. We’ve gotta see the tears. We’ve gotta see the emotion.’ And in -- Sadly in many cases some families go along with that and because McCann’s very firmly said, ‘No this is a private thing and we’ll not -- And that’s a line we will not cross.’ I’m still getting requests to this day and the amount of money they’ve been offering -- I mean, is just ridiculous. They -- they want pictures of Kate in her bedroom crying. It’s just gratuitous, emotive, sentimental rubbish….



AG: …But Clarence you’ve been on both sides of this.



CM: Yes



AG: You’ve been a reporter.



CM: But even as a reporter I would’ve felt uncomfortable



AG: … are you saying that you haven’t done that sort of stuff?



CM: Even as a reporter I would’ve felt uncomfortable asking for that sort of thing.



AG: So were you shocked at what your own trade was doing?



CM: I -- I -- I wasn’t shocked by that sort of thing - that unfortunately is all entirely predictable and it’ll continue for as long as this sort of tragic situation continues. What I was shocked about was the -- the lack of standard of reporting that took place in Portugal -- in that the reporters on the ground did absolutely no investigative work whatsoever. When the police said, ‘Sorry we’re not talking.’ That was it - they accepted that and they just sat in the bar which was offering free white wine -- alcohol. That became the newsroom and every day they would then just translate the Portuguese papers which began to be full of smears - lies in many cases - downright inaccuracies -- they would just lift that.



They’d phone me -- I’d say, ‘this is wrong -- its rubbish -- that’s not true.’ That was it -- ‘Mitchell balances it’ -- piece runs -- ‘thank you.’ It runs the next day in Britain. And then the next day the Portuguese press would run it again - saying the respected British press had confirmed our story - they hadn’t. It was just utter nonsense. The whole thing was just a ridiculous spin cycle… of insanity.



AG: Janet, can you remember when the first negative or questioning stories started to emerge?



JK: Yes, I suppose -- I went out to Portugal a couple of times, before Kate and Gerry came home, just to help look after the children and it was -- it was that end of July, early August, when I think things began to change. I would pinpoint it as that.

Well for one thing they -- they’d moved, you know, out of the Warner apartment, to a small villa which the Portuguese press said, you know, was the height of luxury. You know all these sort of inaccurate descriptions.



And the police attitude changed at that time, as well. And the scenic car was seized and […] at the villa -- the police, who had been very cooperative, you know -- Kate and Gerry had worked with them - they thought really well. And Kate and Gerry tried to be proactive in the investigation and to give as much assistance as possible. And in those few days, August 8th - August 9th, I know that they -- they just suddenly descended without warning and took absolutely every stitch of clothing from the house.



And it was as though it was orchestrated really because the press - at that time - also were, you know, really beginning to be very, very negative and anti the McCann’s and there was suspicion that, you know, that they’d had something to do with Madeleine’s abduction stroke death. And there was a complete sea change that week. And my own impression of being there was that it was also -- almost as though it was a conspiracy - perhaps that’s an over emotional reaction to something. But Kate and Gerry were really at the end of their tether in that week because their search for Madeleine, you know, was totally obstructed.



AG: What happens to you as a person, or you as a family, when you --- you open that newspaper and it’s saying really deeply negative or shocking things about you?



JK: Well I think you sort of -- you’re being destroyed from within if you’re not strong enough to hold on to your own sense of who you are and the fact, you know, that in their case they knew they had absolutely nothing to do, at all, with Madeleine’s disappearance. And I mean I’ve -- I’ve -- you know Kate was my bridesmaid when she was five, when Brian and I were married, and I’ve known her since she was tiny. So I mean I knew myself, you know, that this was all fabricated nonsense. But it was more than nonsense - it was actually evil, you know - I felt a tremendous sense of evil about the place.



AG: Evil is a very strong word to use. What makes you choose a word like that?



JK: Because there were no values, you know. People were acting out lies. There was no integrity. Kate was treated in a really threatening erm -- an absolutely destructive way. But there was also the portrayal -- and it was very much, I felt over the weeks that there was an attempt to demonise Kate. Which interestingly -- I mean, from the sort of distanced point of view -- it’s an interesting thing I’ve observed in the media that often its women who are demonised and are portrayed, you know, as being deeply, deeply devious and, you know… and wicked.

Somehow, that isn’t done in the same way to men. And the fact that Kate’s picture was on the front of so many papers, so many times and they sort of went on about, you know, the fact that she was very, very thin or that, you know, she’d had her hair done, you know -- all those sort of personal comments about her….



CM: I mean again and erm …



JK: …absolutely frightening.



CM: … I need to be careful because there’s still an active police investigation. We have our own private investigation which is firmly running behind the scenes. And elements of what actually happened on the night we can’t -- simply can’t discuss because that would be a breach of Portuguese law.



However-- However-- Janet’s absolutely right. Again, the media has stereotypical expectations in a story of this nature and that one is - that the mother must cry - she must grieve. Kate and Gerry were advised from early on -- we’ve said this on several occasions [to date] -- in the documentary as well -- by the police -- that to show overt emotion plays into the hands of the abductor for all sorts of reasons I won’t go into but fairly obvious at this end. And as a result they were told to try and restrain their emotions in public in the early stages.



And I mean Gerry -- When I first met Gerry when he came over to Rothley a couple of weeks after Madeleine was taken. And as we were going to look at the war memorial with all of the ribbons -- a whole sea of yellow and green, for Madeleine -- he was on the verge of tears and said; ‘[inaudible] is going to see me’ and I said ‘It doesn’t matter you’re her father, if you need to cry, cry.’ As it was, he didn’t.



But Kate has been [inaudible] and she doesn’t recognise herself in some of the early video clips now because she knew what she was going through at the time. She was lambasted and vilified for not showing enough emotion - therefore this must be somehow suspicious. And then when she finally did cry in a Spanish television interview a few weeks later, that was all ‘crocodile tears’ and she was torn apart in discussions over there. So she can’t win. She cannot win, you know. The fundamental fact, as Janet said, is that they are not involved in the disappearance of their daughter. That is the truth.



All of the smears and innuendos started to come out -- appeared they were un-sourced, unnamed; some appeared to be coming from the police direction, some from other directions -- other areas of the system over there. We are not blaming any one individual or any particular officer, other than to say, that some of these smears made their way into print in such a way that they got repeated and repeated and repeated and have now almost become established fact. And that’s one of the hardest things that we have to fight on this. But, you know, we all know the truth of the situation and continue to -- and I continue to represent them on that basis.

I mean I’ve got some of the headlines that I can show you that caused us…



AG: [inaudible]



CM: ….because it was then repeated in the British press and this is why we felt the need to take action as we did against one particular group. I don’t know if we can go to my first slide?



[SLIDES BEGIN]



CM: This was one of the first negative stories that came out. This was a supermarket paper Tal & Qual which basically says - my Portuguese is very thin - but basically it says the police suspect the McCann’s of being involved, in that stage, accidental death of Madeleine. Kate, Gerry, everybody associated with it knew this was absolutely untrue. So we moved initially to take action against that paper it -- it funnily enough, has since folded - but that’s one example.



[PROBLEM WITH SLIDES] Then the more lurid end of the, of the -- sorry of the Portu -- oh no what’ve I done -- excuse me a second -- this’ll come back -- when it wants to play ball. There is a -- there is a healthy tabloid market in erm -- in Portugal as well -- and if I just go to this -- don’t know why its gone like -- bear with me a second -- lets go to … Here we go -- there.



[PRESNTATION CONTINUES]



24 Horas - one of their finer newspapers - makes the Sun look like The Times, [Audience Laughs] ‘Gerry is Not the Biological Father of Madeleine.’ This was another one of the canards that were circulating. Absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever and can be demonstrably proven as such. But no, this was run, front page, colour pictures, all the works, ‘Police are certain this is the case, da da da da,’ Nobody -- Nobody on the record backing it up and when challenged the story just fades away like ice on a summer’s day but nevertheless it enters the mythology around it. We came out and threatened legal action over that one and will continue to do so if it is repeated. But that’s another example of the sort of thing -- and this was happening on a daily basis -- 24 Horas still run this sort of rubbish at the moment. But thankfully, because of what we did with the Daily Express -- the wonderful Express, its -- its moderated some of the behaviour -- some of the attitude at this end, which helps.



Again this is another one - absolutely no truth whatsoever, ‘Syringe Found in Madeleine’s Apartment.’ The sedation just didn’t happen. We’ve done -- or Kate and Gerry have had -- have had independent tests done on Sean, Amelie and Kate to prove beyond categoric doubt -- because of the hair that’s involved -- the length of time your hair takes to grow -- that there were no sedatives administered whatsoever; but this, again, an un-sourced, unsubstantiated claim made in the Portuguese papers becomes almost fact. If you notice there are two little parenthesis around that. Does the reader actually notice those? No, it doesn’t. And in many cases they didn’t even bother to put parentheses on some of these headlines.



And in fact, whenever they talked about blood – which they like to talk about a lot -- there wasn’t any - of any substance, that erm -- that erm, in anyway implicates Kate and Gerry, but nevertheless they like to print that in red at the time - just to make the point.



The Standard then, at different stages -- I’m jumping around slightly chronologically here, but to give you an example of some of the things we’re up against on an almost hourly basis, ‘Police Name McCann’s as Top Suspects.’ Well they haven’t. What is a top suspect? What’s a medium or bottom suspect? It’s just – it’s nonsense but it creates this invidious, insidious feeling of somehow there is guilt by association.



Kate and Gerry are arguido. Now in Portuguese law that simply means, effectively, a person of interest to the inquiry - in the same way that if an officer stops you for a possible traffic offence, and talks to you, you’re a person of interest to him, at that stage. They haven’t been formally accused of any crime; that’s still the case to this day and there is nothing to suggest that they are primary suspects over the other individual in this case who, equally, is in exactly the same status as them. They are, all three of them, of interest to the inquiry and will continue to help the inquiry as-- as and when they need to. But that again, as I say, is the sort of thing that filters into the public consciousness through --



Now this is another winner; on the Tuesday, ‘Madeleine; Parents in the Clear.’ On the Wednesday; ‘DNA Puts Parents in the Frame.’ That was -- that was one particular week. They not only are contradictory on a daily basis - at times they’re contradictory even within the same paper; we had stories that were diametrically opposed on -- in different pages. I highlight the Express because they were the worst offenders but all of the tabloids particularly - and sometimes the broadsheets - were guilty of this as well.



And these were based on un-sourced rumours that were just dropped into the Portuguese press, for whatever reason; whatever the person’s agenda is at the other end - we know that they’re wrong - but, nevertheless, then filtered out into this sort of mainstream coverage here - which then got repeated back in Portugal.



Not just the mainstream papers. Some of the satirical magazines across Europe also felt that they had a chance to have a go at this. This is ‘Find Madeleine’ being used as an advertising brand. Here she is on Kinder chocolate, on nappies, on washing up liquid. This was a German magazine called Titanic - this was their idea of humour. I know there’s a bit of a disconnect between English and German humour at times but this went beyond the pail - and again, we threatened them with legal action. And to their credit the mainstream German press tore into them as well and the magazine, effectively apologised - but in a rather sheepish way.



[SLIDES END]



CM: Talking of apologies -- this is essentially what led us to get to this stage with the Express group. We cited over 100 -- 108 specimen articles that were, in the eyes of our lawyers, Carter-Ruck, who are specialists in this field, grossly defamatory. This is quite apart from things that are just defamatory - these are the really nasty ones. And after a lot of discussion with them -the Express - we basically said these -- we have identified this number of articles across your four titles The Daily & Sunday Express, The Star on Sunday & The Daily Star over the last few months. We have said that they [K&G] would take legal action at a time of their choosing. Well we felt the line had to be drawn -- it was continuing on a daily basis. We were being told by the reporters from the Express group that they were under pressure to put Madeleine on the front page every day, regardless of whether they had a real story or not. It was putting upwards of 50 to 60.0000 copies a day onto their sales. So the whole thing had become a commercially driven imperative for them regardless of the facts, or any fairness or sense of decency, or indeed adhering to British libel law. Carter-Ruck advised us that we had a definite case. The Express -- We sought apologies – damages - for the fund. None of this was done for money. It was done entirely to help the search for Madeleine -- not for Kate and Gerry’s personal benefit -- and front page apologies.



They [The Express] came back initially to say, “Well, that’s all very well, but we’ll give you an exclusive interview with OK magazine in which you can outline all of your concerns.” So we said, “If you think Richard Desmond is going to get an exclusive out of running all this rubbish over the last few months, you’ve got another thought coming,” I wasn’t quite as polite -- our response -- as that. But you -- [Audience laugh] but you get the gist? Their QC then took a look at it and realised that they could not prove one shred of what they had alleged was the truth - and we knew they couldn’t. And as a result he advised them to come forward with these --it’s an over used word -- but these unprecedented front page apologies which we had over the four titles. And the payment of just over half a million went to the fund, as I say.



So, we didn’t want to do it. The media are a fantastic force for good as I said. The mainstream, you know, external media -- quite apart from the whole online debate -- and we didn’t want to effectively damage it. All we -- all we-- our relationship with them -- all we wanted was fair and accurate reporting; responsible reporting, within the parameters of the law that applies to all of us.



Talking about online -- very briefly -- I’m banging through this quite quickly but essentially ‘online,’ as you’ve been discussing throughout the whole conference, is of fundamental importance to the public debate now. And of course the Find Madeleine website is a very, very important vehicle for the family. It acts as our -- a clearing house, if you like, for information on where the campaign’s at. A resource for media -- they can come into it and take pictures, posters and video if necessary. It also, most importantly, is a vehicle for people to give information to our investigation -- we have two new email addresses which is -- it’s recently been revamped and I’ll talk about those briefly in a minute. Gerry also writes a blog on this -- trouble with a blog -- is a monster of course -- you have to keep writing the thing to keep it going and he does update it from time to time, around his current commitments. But the campaign to find Madeleine is as much alive online, through our website -- through the family’s website as it is through some of the external media coverage. So even if we’re not in the papers for a particular reason -- that’s very much a resource that’s moving throughout.



AG: … one of the criticisms that’s been levelled has been, precisely, that Kate and Gerry have been playing such a sophisticated game with the media. Blogging, using the internet…



CM: But who wouldn’t…?



AG… has become a criticism….



CM: But who wouldn’t? What family in this situation which has access and is computer literate - in this day and age….



AG: But many families don’t…



CM: Many families do these days. And I-- I would defy any family to do something different to what they have done. As I say, I exist because of the phenomenal level of media interest -- they would’ve had to do a lot of that themselves - or Janet and Brian would’ve had to cope with it and they have. But in the modern era the only way to engage with the media given its tentacles and its overriding presence -- the way it is now 24/7 is - I would suggest - to actively engage with it. And of course it’s also helped by the fact, and this is not meant in any derogatory way - but from the Media’s perspective, Madeleine’s situation is a huge story for them and there is massive interest in it and that continues -- it works for the media on all sorts of levels.



It’s not just the tragedy of a missing child and her fate and where she is and the search for her, you know. It raises - quite rightly - questions about parenting responsibilities. It raises questions about police cooperation - governmental interest - diplomatic aspects to it. There are lots and lots of different aspects and the public have many differing views on this - for good or bad - and the media is reflecting that. And so they [K&G] find themselves part of a huge monster of a situation. And I would suggest that any other family in that position; with that particular set of circumstances, should and probably would do the same - if they had access to computers and an online capacity these days. It’s not a sophisticated game it’s just dealing with the reality of it.



JK: I mean Kate and I have discussed this, you know, and her response to the criticism is -- the whole point is -- that every child should be sufficiently important for this kind of level of interest -- and trying to find a child. You know out of their loss and their grief, they were spurred on, you know, to actually do research and to find, you know - does this happen? Because in a sense, you know, they said that they were naive to the point where they didn’t realise that this was a danger. They thought it was perfectly safe they were doing the right, responsible thing – like checking on the children every half hour, just about 50 yards away, you know. They were actually being more careful about looking after the children had there been a listening service with Warner’s, you know...



CM: Yes



AG: I wonder if they ever have moments of thinking -- because of the media attention and thinking, ‘Let’s draw a line under the media here - let’s do nothing’…



CM: …A lot of the time -- Well a lot of the -- One, that’s impossible, because the media don’t draw a line under it themselves. They still call. They still ring - About every twist and turn. All it takes is somebody to write an email somewhere - a viral email - and it becomes hard fact in Portugal - I get calls about that. All it takes is someone to assume they might be going on holiday soon - I get calls about that.

So even if we sat back and said nothing and a lot of the time -- and recently we haven’t actually done a lot since the documentary of the anniversary -- the calls still come in. Now do you ignore them? If you ignore them then it becomes, “Oh, McCann’s given up - McCann’s not engaging with the media.” And so it -- you have to monitor quite how much you put out there and what you do - that’s true - because you don’t want it to seem as if its overkill and you’re monopolising things. But nevertheless, if the media continues to offer you a platform, what family would not use that platform to find their missing child. There is no evidence – none whatsoever – that Madeleine is dead. And until her fate is established this will continue. It has to.



AG: That’s a commitment from you?



JK: Absolutely. Yes. You know, in the kitchen there’s a -- somebody’s sent a card, you know, and it’s there prominently, “Never, never, never give up.” And we all feel—feel that very strongly, you know. Leave no stone unturned and never give up. And the evidence seems to, you know -- they’ve been very heartened by the positive support that they got when they went to Washington, you know, from NCMEC -- The National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children -- from people over there. And they have thoroughly supported what they’re doing to keep Madeleine’s profile high and that there’s a greater chance of her being found if there’s no evidence... And one guy -- can’t think of his name at the minute -- the chap whose daughter came back after about nine or ten months -- can’t think of his name, I’m sorry. But he said, “Never let people take your hope away from you.”



CM: Ed Smart.



JK: Ed Smart...



CM: Ed Smart -- his daughter was recovered after…



JK: …And, you know and we still -- we do hold out hope. We have to. Until there is a resolution as you said earlier. And, you know, the statistics in the States seem to prove, you know, that it is possible for children to come back, even after quite a length of time. And they are the people who’ve really supported Kate and Gerry. And Gerry himself said that after that trip, you know, he really had more hope that Madeleine is still alive.



AG: But I have to ask you -- We’ve seen some of those headlines and, I’m, you know, struck by the Daily Express saying thing one thing one day - and the next thing the next day. I have got to ask you, what does that do to you as person? I mean, never mind if you can -- I don’t know if you can separate them in any way -- the experience of losing Madeleine but the attention of the press and the games that they’ve played with you as a family. What does that do to you? And you Clarence, you’ve also had personal vilification too - personal attacks.



CM: Yeah but I’ll -- I’ll answer that -- but let Janet answer



JK: Well, you know, it is terribly, terribly distressing. You know, Brian and I subscribed to a newspaper for 30 odd years that, you know, has very good journalists. Good sort of challenging reading - all that kind of thing, you know. It purports to have values in terms of the integrity of the journalists and so on. And then way back, in the summer, last year, there was a picture of Kate on the front page of this paper and next to it Ann Enright - the Booker prize, you know, ‘Why we all love to hate the McCann’s.’ And then inside an article, that she’d written some time before, but they chose to reprint it. And there was such a denigration of Gerry, you know, who’s a bereaved father; who’s absolutely distraught because his relationship with Madeleine, you know, was so fantastic -- and talking about him, you know; that he’s cold, that he’s controlling, you know, a complete denigration of his character and -- and this...



AG: What does that do to you to see that in a newspaper?



JK: Well I mean -- If I say that we have never -- We don’t have that paper anymore and I wrote to the editor and told him –told him why. Didn’t get a reply I have to say…



CM: That’s the -- That’s the mainstream media if you like. The external online - it’s even worse. Clearly people have views on whether Kate and Gerry were right or wrong to be checking …



JK: Yes that’s fair



CM: … the children as they were. That’s legitimate debate. They made a mistake. They fully accept that. They’ve said that often. And, you know, god forbid, they could pay that price for the rest of their lives - let’s hope not. But where it oversteps the mark is when that debate -- particularly online -- and this is where we talk about values -- and this is the platform that is effectively being given to the modern day lynch mob, in many cases, through this now. It -- it -- Where it almost verges on crim -- incitement to criminality -that’s where it oversteps the mark and our lawyers are looking at that as well. I’m not going to talk about any particular sites or forums because it just satisfies them to think they’ve got us rattled...



AG: But people, when all’s said and done, have said terrible things about you because of your association…



CM: I -- I-- I have been told -- I haven’t read all of it -- but, I have been told, that there have been attempts made to track down my children - to find out what sort of father I am. It’s been alleged that I have been there on the night Madeleine was taken - I was in Britain - utter nonsense. It was alleged that I was buying vast amounts of alcohol for the group on my government credit card - I’ve never had a government credit card - I was not - it’s not true. All total rubbish, lies, rumour, innuendo. But what -- what I’ve gone through is absolutely nothing compared to the vilification that Kate and Gerry have suffered online. They don’t even read it -- its pointless -- doesn’t achieve anything.



AG: Do they read the newspapers?



CM: They used to from time to time it tends to be that I give them an [up…] summary of what’s in it now. But what I’m saying is online -- while it is the, if you like, the 'blogosphere’ for want of a better description -- is incredibly valuable and is a legitimate channel for legitimate public debate. It must surely stay within the bounds of the law and at times some aspects of this haven’t. And as I say, the modern day lynch mob, in effect, have been given voice, and a very high profile voice - and that is disappointing. But frankly we ignore it and we just get on with what we know to be the truth.



AG: What have we learnt about the media and media values over the past 13 months? I mean you’ve come at it from different places. You’ve [CM] played the media game all your life, and for you [JK] it’s been a -- I guess an entirely new experience. What have we learnt?



JK: Well, I know Brian my husband - he has been more involved in giving more interviews, I’ve done far less. And on a daily basis he’s was talking to Sky, to AT-- you know, to everybody, in the early weeks and months. And his own opinion - and I would second that - is that you must keep the media onside because we firmly believe they’re a force for good and that communication isn’t just a neutral thing, you know; communication is important to get ones message out there.



But on the other hand, you know, by dint of bitter experience, we’ve learnt that - as in every profession - there are people who do not possess the kind of values that you would associate with journalists, you know. The examples I gave you, you know, intrusive things to do with, you know, sort of going over a story. And people who actually have written lies in the English press, as well, and made up, you know, that ‘family friend’ says this, or ‘source close to the McCann’s.’ And you sort of know the phrase and you know that if they’re saying this – that, you know, it’s probably -- it’s going to be untrue - and it is.



CM: The lack of information coming from any official source in Portugal because police just do not talk -- The lack of that has led to this vacuum that they need to fill. The journalists -- the reporters on the ground I have a great deal of sympathy with; they’re under immense pressure from their desk. The desks are under pressure from proprietors. It’s the biggest story -- human interest story of the decade, etcetera, etcetera. And therefore there is an imperative for them to get something in and that’s when things like that happen. It’s easy to make up a quote because it’s un-sourced - they’ve been running that sort of rubbish from the Portuguese press for weeks anyway - what harm does an extra couple quotes, here or there, make from their point of view. It’s not right, it shouldn’t happen, but it does.



Essentially the -- the desire for the story, in this particular case, has overridden the normal rules; the normal conventions of journalism that would normally take place and I find that depressing. I hope this is a one off case. I hope it doesn’t apply to standards generally in the future.



But in terms of values -- to bring it back to the theme of the debate -- some of the values, I feel at times, have been sorely lacking. Not necessarily through the personal desire of the individual journalist to do the family down or to be nasty or vindictive. It’s more the commercial imperative and the competition that now exists with so many outlets, across so many places now - online, as well as extraterrestrial - that has led to this, if you like, weakening of standards. And I hope that the media themselves can address that in the future and draw some lessons from this.



AG: One last question that I’d like to ask you. To ask you Janet, in a sense, on behalf of the family - and to ask you Clarence, in your own personal capacity - is what keeps you going? What do you draw on?



JK: Well, first of all, just basically, we are a very strong family. There are strong characters in that family and, you know, I think that probably has kept us together - very much - in that there’s been, you know, not just the immediate nuclear family but an extended family of people from, you know, cousins and so on, who’ve given tremendous support. And I have to say, you know, as a catholic, obviously, that I feel you know myself and I think Kate and Gerry feel very strongly that it is really, you know, our faith, you know, that has kept us going. You know right back in Portugal, you know, the three things that they quoted, you know - hope, strength and courage.



AG: Has your faith not been knocked by…



JK: Absolutely -- It certainly has. It wouldn’t be human, you know, if it hadn’t -- if you were questioning, you know, why Lord, you know, have we not got a result? You know why aren’t you telling us where Madeleine is? Why do we have to wait so long? But, you know, quite honestly that’s what we have to say, you know. The psalms are full of questioning. It’s all about questioning. If you didn’t question your faith it wouldn’t be a strong faith in my opinion. I think we do question…



AG: ... believe me that’s not the first time we’ve heard that, even today.



KG: To have a real relationship with God, you’ve got to be absolutely truthful and honest with Him. And He doesn’t want you to just be ‘nicely nicely,’ you know. He wants you to be up front and to really, really challenge Him. That’s what it’s all about. But having said that, both in the village -- with the ecumenical aspect of all the […] -- and the little Catholic Church that we go to -- I mean every Sunday after mass people stay behind willingly to say the rosary and nobody goes, unless they’re visitors and they don’t know. So there’s tremendous support, you know, a thread of support. And the letters that have come as well from, you know, thousands – and boxes and boxes of letters and you just know --

And the Anglican Bishop of Leicester did a walkabout through his diocese some -- about two months ago and we went to meet him, and he said, “I hope you are aware,” which we are, “that there is a circle of global prayer all around you” And I think we feel actually very strongly, I have to say, that there’s strong global prayer everywhere. And even in the darkest moments, you know, there’s just that thread of support and prayer going through. I have to be honest that’s how we cope.



AG: Clarence I’ve no idea whether you come to this from a perspective of faith or not. What keeps you going?



CM: I -- I admit I’m not particularly religious. I’m not a catholic. But I have seen the strength that Gerry and Kate’s faith, indeed the wider family, has given them at times. Yeah, they’ve had wobbles - there’s no doubt about that. They --And, you know, sometimes I walk in full of the latest: “You won’t believe this, this…” and suddenly you sense the mood, it’s changed. And they have good days and they have bad days but nevertheless it is a central focus, very much - for Kate particularly - I think it’s fair to say. And, you know, what it would’ve been like without that for them, I-- I --I dread to think.



AG: What about you?



CM: What about me? What keeps me going is that they were kind enough to ask me to help. As a father of three myself -- one of my girls is two years old; in many respects I see Madeleine in her, in a way -- and I think what on earth can they really going through even though I’m with them on a regular basis and talk to them every day. It’s hard really to understand that. So if a family in that situation is kind enough and generous enough to ask me to help - it is the very least I can do - to continue doing that - and I will continue to support them in any way I can. As long as the media monster is growling at the gate I will keep dealing with it



AG I mean are you in this for the long haul? We know that…



CM: I’m in this for the long haul. I’m in this for -- At the moment I am employed by Brian Kennedy, (no relation to the other Brian Kennedy; there are too many Brian Kennedys in this story) who is one of the backers who kindly stepped in - once Kate and Gerry were made arguidos - to help them on the financial side and he currently picks up my salary. My -- In future whether I stay with him or develop it into a business of my own I don’t know that’s something we will -- we’re having active discussions on at the moment. But I certainly will continue to represent Kate and Gerry for as long as they, and the wider family, want me to.



AG: We need to draw this to a halt. One of my moving moments of this conference happened this morning, when the conference was in session here, and I happened to be out in the lobby where there’s a little display focussing on missing and vulnerable children. And a bunch of 13 and 14 year old school children came through here. They use the sports hall; they’re from the local school and I went out and found them gathered round, on the floor, around the candles in front of this display. And one of the little girls said to me - well not so little, she was about 14 - 15 - she said to me, “Haven’t they found Madeleine yet?” and I said “No.” And she said, “Well, can I light a candle then?” and I said “Yes.” And she did and so did several of the others. And we’ll continue to do that.



That you so much for coming and joining us - and for being so frank, and open, and honest with us. Clarence and Janet thank you very much.

[Acknowledgement Nigel Moore of mccannfiles and pamalam of gerrymccanns blog)

PORTUGAL: Anglian priest urges police to continue searching for Madeleine McCann

13th September 2007

Father Haynes Hubbard, the Anglican priest in Praia da Luz, told reporters on Wednesday (September 12) that he does not believe the body of missing 4-year-old Madeleine McCann is to be found in the area surrounding the local seaside church the McCanns frequented to pray for their daughter's safe return.

Speaking to journalists outside the Our Lady of the Light Church following Portuguese media reports that new police searches are to be made in the area, Father Hubbard also confirmed that he had not been in contact with the McCanns since they returned to Britain last Sunday (September 9).

"I don't have any opinions on searching the church...We just know the church is a place of sanctuary and I hope not a place of anything else," he said.

He added: ""I hope they search it very well -I hope they search really well, I hope they search all of Luz carefully because maybe they will find Madeleine but I don't think any of us think Madeleine is here in Luz. She is somewhere, somewhere else and we need to bring her back. I don't think anybody believes that Madeleine is in Luz. There is no allegation that I know that she is anything other than somewhere else waiting to come home, and we need to keep on saying that loudly. I assume Portuguese police are doing their job but I hope they are looking for Madeleine at the same time."

Portuguese paper Diario de Noticias said on Wednesday that Kate and Gerry McCann had been given keys to the church during their stay in Praia da Luz. The report has not been confirmed by police.

Answering a reporter's question, Father Hubbard said he didn't expect police to summon him for questioning.

"I very strongly suspect that they won't need anything from us," he said.

The new development would come less than 24 hours after Portuguese public prosecutor decided that a dossier outlining the case against missing Madeleine McCann's parents should go before a judge.

Police handed their files to the Algarve-based prosecutor, Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses, for him to decide whether to bring charges against Kate and Gerry McCann.

The forensic evidence may clear up whether Madeleine's DNA was found in a car hired by the McCanns after she disappeared, as several newspapers have reported.

The couple have repeatedly denied any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.

Reuters

The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann

May 2016

Short debate on the news that Scotland Yard is allegedly following a lead that presumes that Madeleine McCann was abducted by three Portuguese men. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV where criminal current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and André Ventura, University Law Professor & book author.

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'

Transcript

Anchor Sara Carrilho - The thesis of abduction of Madeleine McCann by three Portuguese men is back on the table for the British authorities. The Judiciary Police however does not believe in that hypothesis which was already investigated two years ago.

Voice Over Joana Sales (news segment) - It's the last line of investigation concerning Maddie's disappearance. If it doesn't produce any results Scotland Yard will close the case nine (sic, 5) years after it started. The thesis of this new investigation is unknown, but English police sources believe that the possibility that the little 3-year-old girl was abducted during a burglary deserves a fresh look. This hypothesis surfaced in 2014. The Portuguese police constituted at the time three men as arguidos (suspects), José Carlos da Silva, 30 years old (sic, 39), Ricardo Rodrigues, 24 years old, and Paulo Ribeiro, 53 years old. One of the suspects worked at the Ocean Club resort where the McCann family were staying. He was in charge of accompanying the clients up to the apartments in Praia da Luz. The British police believes that this man together with the other two suspects assaulted the McCanns' apartment and upon seeing the little girl decided to take her. The English police suspicions have as basis phone calls records between the three men on that night. The Portuguese police provided at the time the information requested but considers that there are no indicia to incriminate the three suspects. Scotland Yard will carry on with the investigation, as was recently advanced, until they close it in a few months time whether they have conclusions about Madeleine McCann's disappearance or not.

Anchor Sara Carrilho - Carlos, do you think it makes any sense for the English authorities to question these three Portuguese men again, or return to this abduction thesis?

Carlos Anjos - No, nothing makes sense anymore. I would say, from the day the process was reopened or since when the English authorities reopened the case in England and started to investigate, it has never made any sense. It would make some sense if the English authorities had read the Portuguese process and said that there were failures, and then followed alternative lines of investigation. All they did do, what they have limited themselves to, was merely to follow or repeat what was done by the Portuguese, several times. In fact, they are now redoing what they themselves had done, they've already done this step.

Anchor - That they themselves did, they've already investigated this lead.

Carlos Anjos - It has been a series of blunders, even from the point of view.. A few years later they were searching the sewers to see if the girl was still there, if the body had been there the sewers would have blocked and would have likely burst, with all that rained down in Portugal in the past winters there would be no hypothesis. What they have done, from an investigative standpoint, not only was badly done, we cannot also see a line (methodology). Now they want to pursue a thesis of abduction, which is something... They want to talk with three people, it should be said that of these three I can almost guess who they are going to try pin the blame on for the abduction - on the one that died. Of the three men there's one that has already died, and that is always the weakest link since he's not here to defend himself. These Portuguese have been very helpful, even the suspects, because they've always talked to the English. That is, whenever the English want to speak with them, they have accepted to answer their questions and to give them statements. Because they could clam up, they could refuse with the status of arguidos to give any statements. Actually, they are not arguidos1 because the English don't have the capacity for that. There is a curious fact, the only suspect that was an arguido, Robert Murat, who right or wrong was considered initially as the main suspect, the English discarded him immediately, maybe because he is also English, but that one didn't matter for this scenario. We couldn't see a line of reasoning in there.

I believe this process is going to end very soon, after they make this new onslaught in Portugal. They've spent a lot of money, it's one of the most expensive cases in English investigation history. Strangely enough, numerous children disappear in England yet they don't give them any special care, but they have that with Madeleine McCann.

I would applaud them if I saw an investigation done in different way, and if I saw them taking steps that we hadn't taken, if we had failed it would be necessary to do them, and I do think that we failed, this was already said in here, Rui Pereira said that and Manuel (Rodrigues)2 also, that one of the serious errors was not constituting the McCann couple and their friends as arguidos for the abandonment of their children. There were mistakes in the investigation but those errors were repaired. Now, the English have never brought anything new to the investigation, absolutely nothing at all. And we are here today - if people notice, Portugal followed several lines - we don't know of the English investigation a single lead that was different, a single line of investigation that was different, or that it had produced a different type of results.

This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".

Curiously, we heard the process was going to be archived, and I am convinced, it's my personal opinion, that this process wasn't archived now because the Portuguese court decided in favour of Gonçalo Amaral. Since the decision was favourable for Gonçalo Amaral, and the McCanns are very embittered with that decision because they felt that it was unfair - I'm not saying that it was or not, this is just an observation - the English police, at a time when everything pointed to the archival of the case for lack of evidence - there was even a news article on Correio da Manhã and in other newspapers - decided to start new investigations upon the decision of the Portuguese courts. I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann.

[Acknowledgement: Joana Morais]

CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'

Original Source: CMTV Saturday 23 April 20

25 APRIL 2016 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS

With thanks to Joana Morais  for transcript and translation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Debate panel from left to right: Tânia Laranjo, CM journalist; Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ inspector; Joao Ferreira, CMTV news anchor; Goncalo Amaral, former PJ inspector & Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs

Anchor João Ferreira - This special by CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to focus on the book that I hold in my hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie". It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The man that was at the forefront of the investigation during the first months of the case, a case that has been dragging on for the past nine years. It's the book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his truth about the mystery of the Maddie Case, a truth for which he was removed from the investigation and the reason why he requested an early retirement from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26 years of service. A truth, according to which the little girl died accidentally. Following that death, an unwanted and accidental death, the parents concealed their own daughter's cadaver. This is the truth that we are going to analyse in this special, where the man that wrote this book - and has just been acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon and absolved of having to pay a compensation of 500,000 euro to the McCann couple - will break the silence. A special where we are going to ask uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo Amaral, where we will confront his truth with other possible truths. Right now, let us have a look to the truth revealed in this book that is now allowed to see the light of day.

News Segment 1

Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in Portuguese) Please, give our little girl back.
(in English) Please, give our little girl back.

Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction, defend the McCanns. Accident and concealment of the cadaver is the belief of Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) - If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I doubt the body still exists. In that church there was a coffin with the cadaver of an elderly British lady which in the following day was going to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It was possible for the body of a child of that age and size to be concealed underneath that cadaver.

Voice Over - After six months of investigation, the former PJ inspector is removed from the Maddie Case, and this is one of the issues that was the object of his reflection. In the book that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie", there is a chapter dedicated to that topic: the removal of a coordinator from an investigation, conspiracy or subservience?, questions the former PJ inspector. And it is precisely due to the 220 pages written by Amaral and a DVD with a documentary about Maddie, that the PJ inspector became the target of a lawsuit, a legal process that has been dragging for numerous years. In 2009, the McCann couple went to justice, demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a compensation of 1,2 million euro. The McCanns considered the publication and the documentary defamatory, they alleged to have suffered moral damages. The British couple considered that their rights, liberties and guarantees of the family were violated. The defence of the McCann family considered that Gonçalo Amaral could not have revealed information that appeared in the process of the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance. The defence also alleged that the book was ready three days after the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e Menezes, redacted the dispatch that archived the process against the McCann couple, which had the date of 29 of July of 2008. In the book, the former criminal investigation coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the thesis that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and in the concealment of the 3-year-old girl's body. The McCann's defence lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued that the author, Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized documents from the process, documents that were prohibited. This was a process that dragged in court for years, with successive postponements of court sessions and an attempt to an extra-judicial settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.

Kate McCann (archive footage, press conference 2014) - We took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our children.
Gerry McCann - We want to get justice for Madeleine.

Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil court, ended up condemning Gonçalo Amaral to pay to each one of the members of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry, the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro plus interest, counting back from January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment, the civil court also decreed the prohibition of sales of new editions of the book and DVD, as well as the negotiations to transfer the copyright of both book and documentary. Gonçalo Amaral appealed, and there was a turnaround in this process. The Court of Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the PJ inspector and revoked the sentence. The judges understood that Amaral acted within the framework of the legitimate right to exercise an opinion. The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were, some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in numerous interviews all over the world. Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the indemnification of 250,000 euro to each member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo Amaral's book will soon return to the bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have already stated that they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and Gerry, who have always maintained that Madeleine was abducted, were constituted as arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 for lack of evidence to sustain the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the alleged accidental death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just a few days before of her fourth birthday. The English girl disappeared from this apartment (image of apartment is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings.

Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral, former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV commentator and Minister of Internal Affairs at the time of Maddie's disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former chief inspector of the Judiciary Police and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV journalist, who followed closely the investigations to the Maddie case. Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening madam, it's a pleasure to be here with you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with you, good-evening, thank you for being here.

Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you for the invitation.

Anchor João Ferreira - Did this investigation destroy your career?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my career. I had a dignified professional path in terms of work and progress in the hierarchy, I was an officer, an inspector, then chief-inspector, then I was a coordinator and could have gone a bit further, in fact at the time of the disappearance, when the case happened, I had applied for the role of superior coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it was a matter of time. So, that was the interruption, the life change, the career change, if I had stayed maybe I could have been in another professional position.

Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I begun to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...

Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...

Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to.. I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.

Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug from under your feet?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one pulled the rug from under anyone's feet. There were a series of circumstances that lead to this outcome. A colleague of mine is present here today, and he knows that it's very unlikely for the PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe with another director, I'm recalling Dr. Marques Vidal - to whom I express my gratitude for his support since the very outset, right from when the book was published, he presented the book - maybe it would have been different, maybe the protection of the officers would have been another. But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique case, a director of the Judiciary Police that we will never have again.

Anchor - A leader more brave than others?

Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great understanding of the officers, he was a very humane man, and defended those that risked, that worked at times almost without a net, he was there, present. I could tell you several stories, from the time of the Cavacos, the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave to the men on the ground. These are facts that can be verified, but we're digressing from the topic. I would like to add, that I have nothing against Dr. Alípio Ribeiro.

Anchor - But do you think that Alípio Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe that... For example, in this issue of requesting to the Direction of the PJ to speak in our defence or to allow me to speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the directorate of the Judiciary Police, addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later, I learned that that letter never reached his hands, he never read it. The letter stopped at his assistants, therefore I can't accuse him of anything, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the structural machine that exists, additionally the PJ direction does not usually come out in defence of its officers. Note that we're talking about the direction of the Judiciary Police but we could equally talk about the ASFIC (Association of the Criminal Investigation Officers of the Criminal Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for the officers, for its members, that were on the field, then and after? For example, right now, until now, what did they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any time - regarding myself, a retired officer with success on the work I did - ever called me? Either to congratulate, at this point in time or whatever. Nothing at all.

Anchor - Why do you think is that, Gonçalo?

Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture, of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe because I'm no longer in the police, have nothing to do with the PJ.

Anchor - Are you saying that there is fear from the people in the Judiciary to come out in your defence?

Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I find it strange, a very odd situation. Those who have congratulated me at this point in time, for this decision - a decision that has not yet been rendered final, and may still be the target of an appeal - but those who have congratulated me were colleagues that are retired, not colleagues in active functions. Not even a single colleague on the active congratulated me. On the other hand, I had the support of colleagues in the active from the British police, who also have been present along the years.

Anchor - Let us move now to your truth, the truth that is here in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another issue. That is not my truth...

Anchor - It's the factual truth.

Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that book represents the elements of the Judiciary Police...

Anchor - So, it's the material truth of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that the book is the opinion of the Judiciary Police until September 2007. Not my truth alone.

Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo Amaral, describes a scenario where the little girl Maddie suffered an accidental death...

Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is described in the PJ report written by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.

Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the parents and in face of that death the parents concealed the cadaver.

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an infringement. What that means is...

Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents should be behind bars? Should they be punished for these crimes?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have to do with that. For us to read and understand that book, we also have to understand the moment, the progress of the investigation. And we need to understand that an investigations as a beginning, a middle and an end, as my colleague Moita Flores says an investigation is always zigzagging and he's right about that. At that point in time of the investigation, when the archival was decided, the archival was decided in early October of 2007... Whomever lead the process after me, was there to adjust the process so it could be archived. Any colleague of mine can see that it is the adjustment of the process so it can be archived; all of us have at some point in time archived processes when reaching a dead end and we all know what to do so no investigative leads are left unfinished. So, at that point in time of the investigation that was the line of reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not my line of reasoning alone, it's of the whole team, of the Judiciary Police as an institution. I will go further, after that, nothing was done concerning that line of investigation that...

Anchor - Of the accidental death.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the probable responsibility of the parents in the mysterious disappearance of the child, with all that entails, but this is the essential. Yet, that line of investigation was set aside. Even the Scotland Yard investigation and so on, never explored that line of investigation, and now they've reached a dead end. They constituted, derided in my opinion, - this is what this is all about, opinion and freedom of expression - in my opinion as coordinator, as an investigator, that increase, that creation of numerous arguidos was a derision of that institution. There were two or three arguidos - the English didn't even know the meaning ofarguidos was - and they decided to constitute even more arguidos, and now we have an ocean of arguidos. Before we had a few drops and now we have an ocean where virtually nothing can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.

Anchor - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.

Anchor - ... in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there isn't anything concerning what we just saw me saying on the news piece that was shown. Because these are elements, these are information that appeared afterwards and were never investigated. It's just an hypothesis, and when considering that hypothesis...

Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's body could have been hidden, could have been incinerated, right?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information here, in the police, that mentions that. That in a night, three figures were seen carrying a bag, entering the church...

Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a coffin of a woman, a woman from the United Kingdom...

Anchor - Of a British woman.

Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the following day that coffin was transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to be incinerated. But no one is saying that the parents did that, or saying who did that. It's something that someone who is on the field investigating has to ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.

Anchor - But you concede that hypothesis, that possibility of Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the church, and then incinerated is a plausible hypothesis...

Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically starting by the end, first is the disappearance, if you allow me to explain, to explain to the viewers... [overlapping speech]

Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not to lose this train of thought, is this hypothesis plausible for you?

Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I say plausible in this sense, that that body would fit underneath the cadaver that was already there.

Anchor - And it would fit?

Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the time, when I was already out of the Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion of people that dealt with that, of funeral agencies, and they said that it was a possibility. It's an opinion that is not officialized but it's a possibility. If it happened like that or not, we don't know, there are several hypotheses to make a body disappear.

Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What are the indications, post-disappearance that helped construct the material truth that appears here in the book?

Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed, I would have to look at the book pages and explain them to you in detail. There were several indicia, the contradictions, the discrepancies in the statements of those people, other witness statements that said they saw the father carrying the child at a certain hour, there are a series of indications that point towards that. To give you a full report on that would be tiresome, I believe most people know or are already aware. That was talked about numerous times throughout years. So, indicia and some evidence, evidence in inverted commas, concerning the vestiges that were collected and sent to the English forensics laboratory for analyses, it is said that there could have been a manipulation of all that data, it's still not clear what happened. I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann. And when the report arrived, it was no longer like that. It was said at the time that the profile with a series of alleles matched Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone in that laboratory could have contributed to that profile. So, why did it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to the US president profile? There's something very strange about that analysis, something that should be questioned, verified, investigated. I believe that when forensic analyses are done, the laboratory technician has to keep a record of what he is doing. I don't know if that was destroyed or not, but it should exist along side the report.

Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral before I'll return to you, let us now pay close attention to the next news segment. The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann was since the start embroiled in mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a few days before her fourth day. Let us now watch a reconstitution of that fateful Thursday.

Continued..

Reconstruction segment*

Images of the crime scene, inside and outside apartment 5A, appear on the screen; also of Madeleine McCann and her twin brother and sister, followed by the caption “Where is Maddie?” – then the programme starts.

Voice Over Rui Pando Gomes - On that Thursday of the 3rd of May, 2007, the McCanns’ decide not go to the beach with the other three couples – their friends. Instead, Gerry and Kate spend their day at the Ocean Club.

That day, the couple never leaves the holiday compound but, even so, they do not keep their children with them. Maddie aged three, and the twins Amelie and Sean, aged two, spend their day at the Ocean Club’s crèche (the children’s day care centre).

At 9:10 AM, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.

The crèche staff take the children to the beach. Between 10:30 and 11 hours, Madeleine plays on the beach with other children . Kate collects the children from the crèche at 12:25 and returns them (to the crèche) at 14:50 hours.

A few hours later (around 16:00) Kate is jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she returns to the crèche to pick up her three children and to take them back home to apartment 5A.

At the same time Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends (that is the other three couples) drink on the esplanade (terrace) of the restaurant Paraíso, in Praia da Luz (17:35 hours on the CCTV video caption).

The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in a buoyant mood. Their children are with them. (It looks like) a tranquil (and enjoyable) end to their afternoon.

Short break in the voice-over with more images shown

At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.

The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”

Dinner time approaches.

The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.

In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.

Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.

The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).

According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.

But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.

It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.

(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).

Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)

Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio.

Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation to the Maddie case pursued several lines of inquiry. There were political pressures that marked the beginning of the investigation, which, during a first moment, shielded the parents from becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis.